NationStates Jolt Archive


Big Tough Military Men Get Bullied By Civilians, Bosses Demand Change Of Costume. LOL

Pages : [1] 2
The Atlantian islands
07-03-2008, 03:36
That town is fucking pathetic. Have some respect.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/VAS/0000-4103-4~British-RAF-WWII-Posters.jpg

Air Chief Marshall Sir Glenn Torpy, said: "Whatever people's views are about specific military operations, everyone should be able to recognise the bravery and professionalism of our Armed Forces and respect the difficult job they do."
QFT...respect.
Infinite Revolution
07-03-2008, 03:41
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/7282348.stm

aww didums. i LOL'd quite heartily. i still keep bursting into giggles. hahahaha! those poor 'heroes', nobody respects their stupid blind patriotism or wide-eyed flyboy-ism. hehehehehhehehehehhee! fuckwits.
Celtlund II
07-03-2008, 03:49
During the Vietnam war it was "suggested" we not wear out uniforms when traveling. When I came back from Thailand, we got of the plane at Travis AFB, California and we did not have enough time to take a shower and change into civilian clothes before getting on the bus to the airport in Los Angels. It was suggested, "When you get to LAX, get off the bus and go straight to the USO. Change into civilian clothes and remain in the USO until one hour before your flight."

How absolutely frigging sad. We ask the military to risk their life for their country and the freedom of other people then treat them like trash when they come home. How utterly fucking sad. :mad:
Celtlund II
07-03-2008, 03:50
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/7282348.stm

aww didums. i LOL'd quite heartily. i still keep bursting into giggles. hahahaha! those poor 'heroes', nobody respects their stupid blind patriotism or wide-eyed flyboy-ism. hehehehehhehehehehhee! fuckwits.

So when are you willing to lay your life on the line for freedom and democracy?
Neo Art
07-03-2008, 04:00
So when are you willing to lay your life on the line for freedom and democracy?

Freedom and democracy...yeah...right.

The US military hasn't been used for "freedom and democracy" since world war 2
Knights of Liberty
07-03-2008, 04:02
During the Vietnam war it was "suggested" we not wear out uniforms when traveling. When I came back from Thailand, we got of the plane at Travis AFB, California and we did not have enough time to take a shower and change into civilian clothes before getting on the bus to the airport in Los Angels. It was suggested, "When you get to LAX, get off the bus and go straight to the USO. Change into civilian clothes and remain in the USO until one hour before your flight."

How absolutely frigging sad. We ask the military to risk their life for their country and the freedom of other people then treat them like trash when they come home. How utterly fucking sad. :mad:



I know, how dare they exercise their right to free speech. Damn hippies.
Celtlund II
07-03-2008, 04:02
Freedom and democracy...yeah...right.

The US military hasn't been used for "freedom and democracy" since world war 2

Well, I'm sorry you think the people of Kuwait and Iraq would be better off under Saddam. Oh, and the people of South Korea better off under the dictatorship of Kim?:rolleyes:
Knights of Liberty
07-03-2008, 04:03
Freedom and democracy...yeah...right.

The US military hasn't been used for "freedom and democracy" since world war 2

QFT
The_pantless_hero
07-03-2008, 04:05
When your military is involved in unpopular, unjust conflicts, what do you expect? Everyone to bow down when they walk by? Uh no. I'll Godwin this if you make me.
Knights of Liberty
07-03-2008, 04:06
Well, I'm sorry you think the people of Kuwait and Iraq would be better off under Saddam. Oh, and the people of South Korea better off under the dictatorship of Kim?:rolleyes:



Because our invasion of Iraq had to do with freedom and democracy.

And, we didnt give two shits about the people of South Korea. We were opperating on the absurd "Domino Theory".
Whereyouthinkyougoing
07-03-2008, 04:07
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/7282348.stm

aww didums. i LOL'd quite heartily. i still keep bursting into giggles. hahahaha! those poor 'heroes', nobody respects their stupid blind patriotism or wide-eyed flyboy-ism. hehehehehhehehehehhee! fuckwits.

I'm not a fan of the military by any stretch of the imagination and that's understating it, but it's also usually not the case that the soldiers who are fighting in the wars of the world are fighting there because they want to. War fucks them up badly enough as it is, I don't think they need people who've never actually been there adding some petty abuse on top of it. No matter how misguided the war they're fighting in.
Celtlund II
07-03-2008, 04:08
I know, how dare they exercise their right to free speech. Damn hippies.

Exercising freedom of speech is one thing, harassing someone or spitting on them, or threatening them is something else.
Kontor
07-03-2008, 04:08
Ok...
The Cat-Tribe
07-03-2008, 04:08
That town is fucking pathetic. Have some respect.

*sniP*


QFT...respect.

An Air Chief Marshall says everyone should respect the armed forces? Shocking. Simply shocking. :rolleyes:

Not that I disagree, mind you. ;)
Celtlund II
07-03-2008, 04:09
QFT

Please explain the term QFT to this dumb, old, retired military person. Thank you.
Whereyouthinkyougoing
07-03-2008, 04:10
Exercising freedom of speech is one thing, harassing someone or spitting on them, or threatening them is something else.

Not really, seeing how e.g. those Westboro Baptist folks are still going strong being protected by "freedom of speech".
Knights of Liberty
07-03-2008, 04:10
Please explain the term QFT to this dumb, old, retired military person. Thank you.

Quoted for truth.


ps- No one said you were dumb. And only you know if youre old.;)
Non Aligned States
07-03-2008, 04:12
Well, I'm sorry you think the people of Iraq would be better off under Saddam. :rolleyes:

Let me put this question to you. Which would you rather have? As the average unarmed Iraqi that is.

Random death squads, multiple factions who would shoot you as soon as look you if you don't happen to be their relatives, murder and mutilation of working women, random bombings that can happen anywhere, night searches by US troops who wreck your home and run off or if you're unlucky, rape and kill you as an "enemy insurgent", spiraling food prices, public utilities that have more holes in them than swiss cheese and the occasional lopping off your head by the religious whackos of the day. No real government.

Or

Dissent punishable by death, possible rape and death by occasional death squads, at least the promise of stability and safe working environment, poorly maintained, but functional public utilities, and the occasional air raid by the US. Centralized, secular, government.

You see I'm being fair by using sanction era Iraq as a comparison.

The average Iraqi had it much better before the US showed up.
Celtlund II
07-03-2008, 04:12
Because our invasion of Iraq had to do with freedom and democracy.

Yes.

And, we didnt give two shits about the people of South Korea. We were opperating on the absurd "Domino Theory".

Well then the UN didn't either because the UN voted for and participated in that war. :rolleyes:
Celtlund II
07-03-2008, 04:15
I'm not a fan of the military by any stretch of the imagination and that's understating it, but it's also usually not the case that the soldiers who are fighting in the wars of the world are fighting there because they want to. War fucks them up badly enough as it is, I don't think they need people who've never actually been there adding some petty abuse on top of it. No matter how misguided the war they're fighting in.

Thank you.
Knights of Liberty
07-03-2008, 04:15
Yes.


Then you are naive.



Well then the UN didn't either because the UN voted for and participated in that war. :rolleyes:

No, Id say the UN didnt care either. Again, Domino theory.
Celtlund II
07-03-2008, 04:19
When your military is involved in unpopular, unjust conflicts, what do you expect? Everyone to bow down when they walk by? Uh no. I'll Godwin this if you make me.

No. Blame the politicians who created the situation, but don't blame the military who are obligated to carry out the orders of the Commander in Chief and the DOD. (by the way...many of them don't feel it is an "unjustified conflict, or they wouldn't be signing up to fight in it):rolleyes:
Knights of Liberty
07-03-2008, 04:20
No. Blame the politicians who created the situation, but don't blame the military who are obligated to carry out the orders of the Commander in Chief and the DOD. (by the way...many of them don't feel it is an "unjustified conflict, or they wouldn't be signing up to fight in it):rolleyes:


So, you says it isnt their choce, and then you say it is their choice?


So....I can blame them.
Celtlund II
07-03-2008, 04:22
Quoted for truth.


ps- No one said you were dumb. And only you know if youre old.;)4

Thank you. And birth date May 22, 1943. That means I'll be 35 tis year.
08-43=35 :D (new math)
Andaluciae
07-03-2008, 04:23
So when are you willing to lay your life on the line for freedom and democracy?

It served a deterrent value for forty years, against Soviet aggression in Western Europe. Remember, we weren't the one's who based 20,000 tanks on the continent, we might want to remind Neo and KoL.
Celtlund II
07-03-2008, 04:27
So, you says it isnt their choce, and then you say it is their choice?


So....I can blame them.


It is their choice to join the military. It is their choice to disobey military orders and suffer the consequences of that choice or obey those orders. So no, you cannot blame them for what you feel may be an unjust war.
Celtlund II
07-03-2008, 04:33
It served a deterrent value for forty years, against Soviet aggression in Western Europe. Remember, we weren't the one's who based 20,000 tanks on the continent, we might want to remind Neo and KoL.

TANKS :D for your service brother. Navy Reserve submarines 1960 to 1961. Active duty Air Force 1961-1988.
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
07-03-2008, 04:45
Is 'bullying' from civilians that much of a problem over there? Sounds a little overcautious. I've lived around military bases, before and after Iraq, and haven't seen anyone abusing the military. Joining the military tends to earn you respect around here, especially from older folks.
Non Aligned States
07-03-2008, 04:49
4

Thank you. And birth date May 22, 1943. That means I'll be 35 tis year.
08-43=35 :D (new math)

So you're -35 years? Fairly strong quantum state fingers they must be, if you can type as a probable person. :p
Sumamba Buwhan
07-03-2008, 05:19
We must celebrate the bravery of these civilians. They face a great danger as they hurl abuse in the faces of military men.
Knights of Liberty
07-03-2008, 05:22
We must celebrate the bravery of these civilians. They face a great danger as they hurl abuse in the faces of military men.


Yeah, getting their asses kicked.


I must admit...seeing this would be funny:

Hippie: BABY KILLER!!
*Marine Floors the Hippie*
Hippie: *Gurgle*....
Sumamba Buwhan
07-03-2008, 05:28
Yeah, getting their asses kicked.


I must admit...seeing this would be funny:

Hippie: BABY KILLER!!
*Marine Floors the Hippie*
Hippie: *Gurgle*....

exactly!

they are defending freedom of speech!
Neo Art
07-03-2008, 06:01
It served a deterrent value for forty years, against Soviet aggression in Western Europe. Remember, we weren't the one's who based 20,000 tanks on the continent, we might want to remind Neo and KoL.

We were the ones however who used two nuclear weapons partly because we wanted to show stalin we could. Drop this nonsensical pretense that the USSR was this great and evil empire and the USA was a shining becon of hope and liberty. Both sides participated in that conflict, both sides committed atrocities, both sides helped to effectively cause the messed up situation in the world in their desperate mutual attempt to create buffer zones and constant one uppmanship.

The USA stopped being about spreading freedom and democracy and entirely about protecting its own interests. Nothing more and nothing less.
Blouman Empire
07-03-2008, 07:01
When your military is involved in unpopular, unjust conflicts, what do you expect? Everyone to bow down when they walk by? Uh no. I'll Godwin this if you make me.

Oh that's right how stupid of me it was the soldiers decision to go into Iraq. And before you say they could leave actually many of them had signed contracts to be a part of the forces before this war began and thus are bound by the contract to honour their agreement.

I find it absolutely disgusting that Vietnam Veterans were spat on and attacked during and after the war, because they were over there many of them were conscripts sent over there and still they were personally attacked because some people thought that they were to blame.

Of course perhaps some people would be happy if their defence forces just disbanded entirely and then we will see how their life is going after the next major war.
Blouman Empire
07-03-2008, 07:08
We were the ones however who used two nuclear weapons partly because we wanted to show stalin we could. Drop this nonsensical pretense that the USSR was this great and evil empire and the USA was a shining becon of hope and liberty. Both sides participated in that conflict, both sides committed atrocities, both sides helped to effectively cause the messed up situation in the world in their desperate mutual attempt to create buffer zones and constant one uppmanship.

The USA stopped being about spreading freedom and democracy and entirely about protecting its own interests. Nothing more and nothing less.

Well actually the atomic bombs were dropped to force Japan to surrender so as not to luanch an invasion force thus sparing the lives of more US and allies lives.

Now I don't know much about the US forces and all of their contributions around the world but the Australian Defence Force (ADF) has deployed to places to maintain freedom, democracy and peace. The prodominate places include East Timor where they deployed when the East Timorese wanted independence from Indonesia, of course Indonesia didn't want this and many of the army units within East Timor went on a rampage in the new country the ADF stepped in to ensure that the will of the East Timorese would be carried out, they still remain there to that day untill peace and stability is formed within the country.
Honsria
07-03-2008, 07:09
Freedom and democracy...yeah...right.

The US military hasn't been used for "freedom and democracy" since world war 2

way to not know anything about history.
Zilam
07-03-2008, 07:11
While I despise the military as a whole, I do have respect for those who sign up, for the idea of protecting others, and I do find it stupid of people to spit, or abuse soldiers, simply because they were following orders. Sure, maybe its okay to scrutinize those soldiers that act way beyond the call of duty, and kill people for the hell of it, but an ordinary soldier is no different than anyone that posts on this forum, and I would treat them the same way as I would treat any of you, or any random stranger on the street. So thumbs down to what happened in the OP. :(
Straughn
07-03-2008, 07:16
it's also usually not the case that the soldiers who are fighting in the wars of the world are fighting there because they want to.Other than in times where there's no draft, what with it being volunteer and all.
War fucks them up badly enough as it is
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-03-06-soldier-stress_N.htm
Straughn
07-03-2008, 07:17
they are defending freedom of speech!
You mean $ to congressmen/women by special interest groups and lobbyists?
Honsria
07-03-2008, 07:23
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/7282348.stm

aww didums. i LOL'd quite heartily. i still keep bursting into giggles. hahahaha! those poor 'heroes', nobody respects their stupid blind patriotism or wide-eyed flyboy-ism. hehehehehhehehehehhee! fuckwits.

I understand that a lot of people don't agree with any country's involvement in wars, but this is just ridiculous. I hope that this is a case of outspoken people causing more than their share of trouble, and not an actual case of the British people actively disrespecting their military.

In my opinion signing up for military service is one of the most selfless things a person can do. I know that there's financial motivation in a lot of cases, but there are still a lot of easier and safer ways to get money.

And for the creator of this thread, get a clue. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, mistreating people who have volunteered to protect their country is not a good idea in any situation.
Honsria
07-03-2008, 07:24
Oh that's right how stupid of me it was the soldiers decision to go into Iraq. And before you say they could leave actually many of them had signed contracts to be a part of the forces before this war began and thus are bound by the contract to honour their agreement.

I find it absolutely disgusting that Vietnam Veterans were spat on and attacked during and after the war, because they were over there many of them were conscripts sent over there and still they were personally attacked because some people thought that they were to blame.

Of course perhaps some people would be happy if their defence forces just disbanded entirely and then we will see how their life is going after the next major war.

Or for that matter any war, or any riot that the local cops can't handle. Or the next time their gov't wants something from someone else.
United States of Kamon
07-03-2008, 07:33
Wow, what a depressing thread. I get more respect from the Iraqis here than I do back home. In fact, I feel safer walking down the street here than I would in certain parts of my home town. Its wierd to hear other nonsense coming from people who have no idea what is going on here.
Straughn
07-03-2008, 07:43
Wow, what a depressing thread. I get more respect from the Iraqis here than I do back home.The same thing was said about how 'Nam vets were received at homecoming. How do you feel about 'Nam vets?
Its wierd to hear other nonsense coming from people who have no idea what is going on here.Of course, you wouldn't act elitist or anything about it, right? You'd happily share what is actually going on there, then, unabashedly? Nothing that would contradict any other experts' assessment on what's going on, of course ....
Sparkelle
07-03-2008, 07:50
I always wondered why people ever did treat vetrans with respect. Was every single soldier noble?
Straughn
07-03-2008, 07:52
When your military is involved in unpopular, unjust conflicts, what do you expect? Remember, governments are historically quite fond of second guessing the populace for its their own interests.
Even moving to things like "Patriot Act"s against the populace's better judgment.
When the mass force utilisations of said governmental decisions occur, it's quite predictable that not only will be people be less supportive of the mass force, but even moreso the underlying mentality behind it in the first place ... lots of historical examples to make one wary.
Straughn
07-03-2008, 07:55
I always wondered why people ever did treat vetrans with respect.Some truly meant the best ... even if it was just the best they could give.
Was every single soldier noble?
Law of averages?
Obviously there's plenty of bad apples to go around, as there is in every populace, especially under stressful/extremely stressful/opportunistic situations.
Like with puppies and pyramids.
Eofaerwic
07-03-2008, 11:02
I understand that a lot of people don't agree with any country's involvement in wars, but this is just ridiculous. I hope that this is a case of outspoken people causing more than their share of trouble, and not an actual case of the British people actively disrespecting their military.


As a rule no, from my own experience of living near barracks in two different towns the vast vast majority of people have no problem with the people serving in the armed forces, although I don't think we 'venerate' (if that's the right word) them as much as in the US. From what I tend to see, most people who dislike the war blame the politicians/government more than the troops, and similarly people who disagree with the war aren't automatically assumed to be against the troops.

Of course with uniforms you have to keep in mind that only relatively recently did the MoD stop strongly advising their personnel not to wear uniform off base, because of worries they'd get targeted by the IRA.

Personally I disagree strongly with Iraq (not so much Afganistan) but I believe hurling abuse at ANYONE just because of their job (or indeed any other reason) is fundamentally wrong.
Kalmurstan
07-03-2008, 11:18
Is 'bullying' from civilians that much of a problem over there? Sounds a little overcautious. I've lived around military bases, before and after Iraq, and haven't seen anyone abusing the military. Joining the military tends to earn you respect around here, especially from older folks.

When we've got gangs of youths physically assaulting fire fighters and ambulance crews whilst they go about their business of saving lives, I'm not surprised that serving military personnel are being verbally abused. Disappointed? Yes. Surprised? No.
Ifreann
07-03-2008, 11:29
During the Vietnam war it was "suggested" we not wear out uniforms when traveling. When I came back from Thailand, we got of the plane at Travis AFB, California and we did not have enough time to take a shower and change into civilian clothes before getting on the bus to the airport in Los Angels. It was suggested, "When you get to LAX, get off the bus and go straight to the USO. Change into civilian clothes and remain in the USO until one hour before your flight."

How absolutely frigging sad. We ask the military to risk their life for their country and the freedom of other people then treat them like trash when they come home. How utterly fucking sad. :mad:
It's an unavoidable consequence of living in a free country that people will use their freedom in ways you don't like.

That said, I fail to see what anyone hopes to achieve by yelling at soldiers. It's not like they have an awful lot of say in the war. I mean, when the government passes a law you don't like, you don't start hurling abuse at the clerk/secretary/whatever who actually typed up the law and pressed print.
We must celebrate the bravery of these civilians. They face a great danger as they hurl abuse in the faces of military men.

This post amuses me. Yay. :)
Doughty Street
07-03-2008, 12:21
Although I fundamentally disagree with Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan (trying not to derail the thread...), abusing members of the armed forces is just plain wrong. On a side note, I'd like to see those who are injured while in service given proper medical treatment instead of the fairly lamentable and inadequate treatment they get now.

Go for the halfwitted sociopathic numbskull politicians who sent them there in the first place. With a selection of half-rotted fruit. That'd be okay.
Laerod
07-03-2008, 12:29
Here's a funny thing. I find myself disagreeing with how the townspeople have apparently voiced their opinions. It's one thing not to engage in the overblown hero worship that's more common in the US, but to actually abuse people simply because they're wearing a uniform is unacceptable. Judge people by their actions, and until you know for sure that specific soldier is a murdering bastard, treat him or her like someone that is willing to risk their life, no matter how ill-advised the motivation of the politicians that risked it.
Myrmidonisia
07-03-2008, 13:16
Please explain the term QFT to this dumb, old, retired military person. Thank you.
Google is your friend on most of this stuff. I'm still working out the misspellings like 'teh' and 'noz'... It must be a generational thing.
Laerod
07-03-2008, 13:53
Wait for the denials. Apparently, a lot of people believe this never happened, ever.
Whispering Legs, is that you?
Sanmartin
07-03-2008, 13:56
During the Vietnam war it was "suggested" we not wear out uniforms when traveling. When I came back from Thailand, we got of the plane at Travis AFB, California and we did not have enough time to take a shower and change into civilian clothes before getting on the bus to the airport in Los Angels. It was suggested, "When you get to LAX, get off the bus and go straight to the USO. Change into civilian clothes and remain in the USO until one hour before your flight."

How absolutely frigging sad. We ask the military to risk their life for their country and the freedom of other people then treat them like trash when they come home. How utterly fucking sad. :mad:

Wait for the denials. Apparently, a lot of people believe this never happened, ever.
Call to power
07-03-2008, 14:15
well I've had people yell stuff from cars whilst I was in uniform but I've never really been stupid enough to actively go about wearing such things as the guys that do go about doing it are shall we say "pricks" out to wave their glory penis because they where bullied in school and need to feel superior

course this is a local town and like every town near military bases they hardly have a good relationship (mostly thanks to said pricks) so resentment is common along with spiking drinks, fighting and people with Irish accents offering drugs
Dyakovo
07-03-2008, 14:27
I'm not a fan of the military by any stretch of the imagination and that's understating it, but it's also usually not the case that the soldiers who are fighting in the wars of the world are fighting there because they want to. War fucks them up badly enough as it is, I don't think they need people who've never actually been there adding some petty abuse on top of it. No matter how misguided the war they're fighting in.

QFT
Whereyouthinkyougoing
07-03-2008, 14:50
Other than in times where there's no draft, what with it being volunteer and all.Yeah, no, not really. Personally, I have major problems with those who volunteer "out of patriotic duty" because I can't help but think they just want to experience some cool fightin' and killin' some , hell yeah! Even if I'm wrong in many if not most cases, which I'm bound to me, I'm still iffy because I simply never got that whole "war & patriotism & glory" thing.
But most people volunteering for the military ([I]especially in the US) simply volunteer because it's a rational decision to make when your options for a secondary education or a living-wage job are severely limited. I'd still try and talk them out of it but I'm not in their shoes, am I?
And even those who go for the patriotism and the glory - do you really think that, when they get there, they like it? They think it's awesome? They like becoming killers and watching their friends being killed and eventually being killed themselves? Yeah, no.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-03-06-soldier-stress_N.htm
I'm currently sitting here surrounded by much more material on stuff like that than you ever want to read because it would make you fucking cry. And then people make threads about how they can't believe that a soldier in a war zone would ever go and throw a puppy off a cliff. :rolleyes:

I always wondered why people ever did treat vetrans with respect. Was every single soldier noble?
That's completely missing the point. You shouldn't be treating veterans or soldiers with respect just because they're veterans or soldiers. You should simply award them the same respect you award every other random person you come across in your daily life you don't know unless they act in a way that makes it clear they don't deserve it.
Kulikovia
07-03-2008, 15:51
U.S. servicemen aren't allowed to wear their uniforms while traveling overseas. While overseas, we can't wear our uniforms off base. in the states; however, we are allowed to wear our uniforms while traveling or off base.
Andaluciae
07-03-2008, 16:00
We were the ones however who used two nuclear weapons partly because we wanted to show stalin we could. Drop this nonsensical pretense that the USSR was this great and evil empire and the USA was a shining becon of hope and liberty. Both sides participated in that conflict, both sides committed atrocities, both sides helped to effectively cause the messed up situation in the world in their desperate mutual attempt to create buffer zones and constant one uppmanship.

The USA stopped being about spreading freedom and democracy and entirely about protecting its own interests. Nothing more and nothing less.

The moral equivalency hypothesis is entirely wrong, and you've got to be numb in the head for believing in it.

There is a significant quantitative difference between the domestic policies of the United States in the Soviet Union, there is a significant difference between the function of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and there is a significant difference between how the two states treated non-aligned countries, and there is a significant difference between the achievements of the two countries.

Is the US an untarnished beacon of freedom, hope and justice? Absolutely not, but we were and are leagues better than the Soviet Union.
Gift-of-god
07-03-2008, 16:07
...There is a significant quantitative difference between the domestic policies of the United States in the Soviet Union, there is a significant difference between the function of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and there is a significant difference between how the two states treated non-aligned countries, and there is a significant difference between the achievements of the two countries...

Yes. The United States meddled extensively in Latin America, propping up dictators and tyrants. The USSR didn't.

Worlds of difference.

EDIT: As to the OP, it is interesting to note that no one outside the military seesm to have witnessed these attacks.
Cosmopoles
07-03-2008, 16:17
EDIT: As to the OP, it is interesting to note that no one outside the military seesm to have witnessed these attacks.

I'm not in the military but I have witnessed and been told about abuse given to my friends who are in the Officer's Training Corp when they are in uniform coming to and from the OTC, when collecting for ex-sevicemen's charities and at OTC recruitment days. Apparently some people are confused and think that it is the army's decision to withdraw troops from Iraq, rather than the government's.

As for me, I'm going to go to Starbuck's and give abuse to the waitresses because I don't think they pay a fair price to third world farmers. That's reasonable, right?
Non Aligned States
07-03-2008, 16:26
U.S. servicemen aren't allowed to wear their uniforms while traveling overseas. While overseas, we can't wear our uniforms off base.

This part is only sensible. What do you think the average person is going to think seeing foreign troops in uniform walking about town?
Andaluciae
07-03-2008, 16:28
Yes. The United States meddled extensively in Latin America, propping up dictators and tyrants. The USSR didn't.

Worlds of difference.



Latin America is small fries compared to the crimes of the Soviet government. Were our sins there significant? Yes, they were, but, as I said, they do not make for moral equivalence. And, actually, the USSR did prop up at least one, and they did so extensively: Castro. Who used resources provided by the USSR to "spread the revolution" all across Latin America.

The Gulag system, extensive utilization of slave labor, extreme censorship and information control, extensive torture networks, the NKVD/KGB and such don't even begin to describe the crimes of the Soviet government against its own people.

The invasions of East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic States, the Ukraine, Afghanistan, and all the other victims of programs akin to the Brezhnev doctrine. The reason the Warsaw Pact existed was certainly partially its value for use against NATO, but it was never used against NATO. The Warsaw Pact was only ever used against members of its own bloc. Not only that, but look at how the NATO government's treated their people, as compared to say, Ceausescu.

Are you acquainted with the Soviet vs. American exports to the developing world? There is a very good reason that the continent of Africa is swamped with AK-47's and RPG-7's, and not American M-16's and LAW rockets. There's a reason it's an AK-47 on the flag of Mozambique. The USSR was almost the unitary provider of the tools for the genocides and massacres that have occurred during and since the end of the Cold War.

Take my wor
Saxnot
07-03-2008, 16:36
Exercising freedom of speech is one thing, harassing someone or spitting on them, or threatening them is something else.

To be honest, I've got a base level of no respect for soldiers. This wouldn't be the case if they didn't beat on my friends while they were tanked-up.
Knights of Liberty
07-03-2008, 16:55
Well actually the atomic bombs were dropped to force Japan to surrender so as not to luanch an invasion force thus sparing the lives of more US and allies lives.



Bull. Historical evidence shows that Japan was ready to surrender without us having to do an invasion. We dropped the atomic bombs to scare Stalin. Japan was going to surrender on the condition we let them keep their emperor as a figure head because it was a great part of their history and culture. We didnt accpet that, bombed them to scare Stalin, and then after they surrendered unconditionally we let them keep their emperor anyway.
Neo Art
07-03-2008, 16:58
The moral equivalency hypothesis is entirely wrong, and you've got to be numb in the head for believing in it.


Do me a favor. Before you insult me for something I said, do make sure I actually said it. Point out to me, if you will, where I said the US and the USSR were "morally equivalent". You won't, because it's not there. My family lost people to Stalin, I know they weren't equal.

But to frame the cold war as some sort of "battle between good and evil" is nonsensical. The US didn't have clean hands in the whole thing, and to argue that the cold war conflict had anything to do with the US desire to spread peace and love and democracy and not two emerging superpowers jockying for position on a global stage...is ludicrus.

At best the cold war was a battle between evil, and not quite so evil.
Liuzzo
07-03-2008, 17:13
Freedom and democracy...yeah...right.

The US military hasn't been used for "freedom and democracy" since world war 2

Here's my take on all of this. Your point is well taken, but I feel it is irrelevant. Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines do not get to choose where they go to battle. They do not get to choose why they fight, how they fight, or when they fight. Many people join the military as a way to lift themselves out of poverty. The military gives them housing, pay, medical benefits, a sense of belonging, and the ability to get an education through the GI bill. Some do this to protect their country and keep us all safe. You may disagree with the way they are used, the military action they are engaged in, or even their choice to serve. I don't think that it's much to ask for you to give us respect. If you want to protest the war then do it in front of the Pentagon, town hall, the White House, or state capital. This way you are affecting the decision makers who are responsible for what you hate, and not the brave men and women who choose to serve.

As for me I can take the abuse. I don't care very much what others think of me or my decision to become a Marine. I was pretty much set to do this on my 18th birthday, and my choice was solidified when my uncle (a Marine) died in a training accident in San Diego. He save 7 sailors that day and was posthumously awarded the CMO. Receiving our nation's highest honor made me feel more pride than I already felt for him. It helped to let me know that I was doing what was right for me. If you don't want to serve (not you personally) that's fine. Don't dishonor those of us who have made a different choice.
Neo Art
07-03-2008, 17:16
Here's my take on all of this. Your point is well taken, but I feel it is irrelevant. Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines do not get to choose where they go to battle. They do not get to choose why they fight, how they fight, or when they fight.

They chose to fight, however. They chose to join a military that has been used as ours has been used in the last 50 years. Frankly speaking, I have less respect, as a default position for american soldiers in the 21st century than I would for german soldiers in world war 2. American soldiers have the choice, and they choose to join a military with history and goals that are dubious, at best.

I don't necessarily disrespect them for that choice, as you said, many might find it the best choice for them to make personally. However, even if that's the case for some, given how our military has been used in the last decades, anyone who chooses to join it is automatically at a dubious position with me.

You may disagree with the way they are used, the military action they are engaged in, or even their choice to serve. I don't think that it's much to ask for you to give us respect.

Why should I respect you for doing the job you chose to do? I get up and do my job every morning too, I don't ask you for your respect. In fact I have a general default position that anyone who asks me for my respect probably doesn't deserve it. I don't respect words, I respect actions, and I don't find joining a military an action worthy of respect.

Now again, I don't necessarily disrespect people in the military, though I do disrespect the military as an entity, and anyone who chooses to go into such a career is automatically in a dubious position with me, but I leave myself open for those who had no other choice, or are under the misguided viewpoint that you're "helping the world" or "keeping america safe". I don't respect them for that choice, but I don't treat them with derision either

If you don't want to serve (not you personally) that's fine. Don't dishonor those of us who have made a different choice.

I don't "dishonor" you (though I laugh at the antiquated and outdated concept like "dishonor" as if you were somehow deserving of honor from me), I just disagree with the choice you made. I disagree that you chose to join an establishment that has been more of a force of oppression and violence than peace and democracy. That doesn't deserve my respect. Now, I won't necessarily fault you for buying into the dillusion, but I won't respect you for it either.
Knights of Liberty
07-03-2008, 17:16
Here's my take on all of this. Your point is well taken, but I feel it is irrelevant. Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines do not get to choose where they go to battle. They do not get to choose why they fight, how they fight, or when they fight. Many people join the military as a way to lift themselves out of poverty. The military gives them housing, pay, medical benefits, a sense of belonging, and the ability to get an education through the GI bill. Some do this to protect their country and keep us all safe. You may disagree with the way they are used, the military action they are engaged in, or even their choice to serve. I don't think that it's much to ask for you to give us respect. If you want to protest the war then do it in front of the Pentagon, town hall, the White House, or state capital. This way you are affecting the decision makers who are responsible for what you hate, and not the brave men and women who choose to serve.

As for me I can take the abuse. I don't care very much what others think of me or my decision to become a Marine. I was pretty much set to do this on my 18th birthday, and my choice was solidified when my uncle (a Marine) died in a training accident in San Diego. He save 7 sailors that day and was posthumously awarded the CMO. Receiving our nation's highest honor made me feel more pride than I already felt for him. It helped to let me know that I was doing what was right for me. If you don't want to serve (not you personally) that's fine. Don't dishonor those of us who have made a different choice.



I agree, I dont think anyone is really saying "Yeah! Good on them! Fight the good fight and spit on those dirty soldiers!"


I personally at least was more reacting to the naive statement that the US is "teh bestest country everz and is teh becon of freedomness and libertyz".

And, well, its free speech. But, like how I feel about all free speech, you are free to speak your mind, you just dont get to bitch about the consequences. So if you spit on a marine, and he breaks your arm, tough shit.

I dont evny soldiers. I dont respect them more than I do any other productive member of society. But I certainly dont respect them less.
Gift-of-god
07-03-2008, 17:18
Latin America is small fries compared to the crimes of the Soviet government.

How easily one dismisses those pesky details that don't support our argument...


...Are you acquainted with the Soviet vs. American exports to the developing world? There is a very good reason that the continent of Africa is swamped with AK-47's and RPG-7's, and not American M-16's and LAW rockets. There's a reason it's an AK-47 on the flag of Mozambique. The USSR was almost the unitary provider of the tools for the genocides and massacres that have occurred during and since the end of the Cold War.

Take my word for it.

Actually I won't take your word for it.

The reason that the AK47 is on the flag is not because they're part of the Soviet empire, but because that was the weapon they used in their war for independence. It must irk you that leftist nations supported a war for independence against a western European power.

So, when a leftist nation apparently supports a war against colonialism and imperialism, this somehow becomes evidence of imperialism. Sure.
Dyakovo
07-03-2008, 17:21
Here's my take on all of this. Your point is well taken, but I feel it is irrelevant. Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines do not get to choose where they go to battle. They do not get to choose why they fight, how they fight, or when they fight. Many people join the military as a way to lift themselves out of poverty. The military gives them housing, pay, medical benefits, a sense of belonging, and the ability to get an education through the GI bill. Some do this to protect their country and keep us all safe. You may disagree with the way they are used, the military action they are engaged in, or even their choice to serve. I don't think that it's much to ask for you to give us respect. If you want to protest the war then do it in front of the Pentagon, town hall, the White House, or state capital. This way you are affecting the decision makers who are responsible for what you hate, and not the brave men and women who choose to serve.

As for me I can take the abuse. I don't care very much what others think of me or my decision to become a Marine. I was pretty much set to do this on my 18th birthday, and my choice was solidified when my uncle (a Marine) died in a training accident in San Diego. He save 7 sailors that day and was posthumously awarded the CMO. Receiving our nation's highest honor made me feel more pride than I already felt for him. It helped to let me know that I was doing what was right for me. If you don't want to serve (not you personally) that's fine. Don't dishonor those of us who have made a different choice.

QFT
New Genoa
07-03-2008, 17:29
How easily one dismisses those pesky details that don't support our argument...


...Are you acquainted with the Soviet vs. American exports to the developing world? There is a very good reason that the continent of Africa is swamped with AK-47's and RPG-7's, and not American M-16's and LAW rockets. There's a reason it's an AK-47 on the flag of Mozambique. The USSR was almost the unitary provider of the tools for the genocides and massacres that have occurred during and since the end of the Cold War.

Take my word for it.

Actually I won't take your word for it.

The reason that the AK47 is on the flag is not because they're part of the Soviet empire, but because that was the weapon they used in their war for independence. It must irk you that leftist nations supported a war for independence against a western European power.

So, when a leftist nation apparently supports a war against colonialism and imperialism, this somehow becomes evidence of imperialism. Sure.

You missed the point. Where did they get the weapons?
Knights of Liberty
07-03-2008, 17:37
[QUOTE=Gift-of-god;13508462]How easily one dismisses those pesky details that don't support our argument...




You missed the point. Where did they get the weapons?



Because the US never sold arms to countries who commit genocides and overthrow their governments.


Oh wait....
Neo Art
07-03-2008, 17:42
Here's the thing about this whole line of "spreading freedom and democracy". It's bullshit. It's a line used trying to drum up support for the military while attacking those against the Iraq war with a line of "guess you odn't like freedom huh?"

Here's the thing, I do like freedom, I like it a lot, and while I recognize that prewar Iraq was a shitty place to live in by and large many of those problems were as a result of our own sanctions, and while life was no picnic, starvation and disease wasn't a huge problem.

I also recognize that there were a lot worse places in the world. Places like Congo. Places like Sudan. Places like Darfur. places like Kenya. Places like Zimbabwe. Places where starvation and disease are rampant. Places where people are literally starving to death by the millions, and one in four people has HIV.

If we truly cared about spreading freedom, helping the worlds disenfranchised, we'd start with the worst of the worst and work our way up. But we didn't do that, did we? No, we didn't. We went to Iraq (and spent more than 100 times what we spend in AIDS relief, by the way) and now pat ourselves on the back for "spreading freedom and democracy" all the while the desperate pleas for help from people that the world, and God, forgot are ignored, because they don't seem to have any oil.

If we really cared, really cared about making the world a better place, there are a whole lot bette rplaces we could have started. So don't sell me this line of bullshit about spreading freedom and democracy.
Knights of Liberty
07-03-2008, 17:45
Here's the thing about this whole line of "spreading freedom and democracy". It's bullshit. It's a line used trying to drum up support for the military while attacking those against the Iraq war with a line of "guess you odn't like freedom huh?"

Here's the thing, I do like freedom, I like it a lot, and while I recognize that prewar Iraq was a shitty place to live in by and large many of those problems were as a result of our own sanctions, and while life was no picnic, starvation and disease wasn't a huge problem.

I also recognize that there were a lot worse places in the world. Places like Congo. Places like Sudan. Places like Darfur. places like Kenya. Places like Zimbabwe. Places where starvation and disease are rampant. Places where people are literally starving to death by the millions, and one in four people has HIV.

If we truly cared about spreading freedom, helping the worlds disenfranchised, we'd start with the worst of the worst and work our way up. But we didn't do that, did we? No, we didn't. We went to Iraq (and spent more than 100 times what we spend in AIDS relief, by the way) and now pat ourselves on the back for "spreading freedom and democracy" all the while the desperate pleas for help from people that the world, and God, forgot are ignored, because they don't seem to have any oil.

If we really cared, really cared about making the world a better place, there are a whole lot bette rplaces we could have started. So don't sell me this line of bullshit about spreading freedom and democracy.



B-b-but.....WMDs...and...Al Quada....and...and....
Araraukar
07-03-2008, 17:46
This picture says it all IMHO.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/funny-pictures-soldier-and-cat.jpg
Gift-of-god
07-03-2008, 17:46
You missed the point. Where did they get the weapons?

No, I did not miss the point. The weapon, since it was an AK-47, must have originated in the former Soviet Union.

That much is clear. I thought it was so clear that I would not have to explicitly mention this fact in order for people to understand that I figured that part out. Unfortunately, I apparently overestimated the level of reading comprehension on this forum, so I am forced to repeat myself and explicitly point out what should have been obvious.

The point is that Andalucaie was using this as an example of Soviet imperialism, aggression and genocide. It is not. It is an allusion to a war of independence. In other words, it is an example of the fight against imperialism and aggression. Almost the exact opposite of what Andy was claiming.

We are hijacking the thread.
Araraukar
07-03-2008, 17:49
The weapon, since it was an AK-47, must have originated in the former Soviet Union.

*cough* AK-47's are one of the easiest weapons to 'pirate', so they're continuously made pretty much anywhere that has rudimentary tech needed for rifle-making. So unless it had a "Made in USSR" stamp on it, weapon type does not mark the country of origin.

EDIT: See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47#Production_outside_of_the_Soviet_Union.2FRussia
Liuzzo
07-03-2008, 17:50
Also Neo, you forget about the National Guard and how they help domestically. This from the big, bad, and evil military.
[NS]I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS
07-03-2008, 17:52
When your military is involved in unpopular, unjust conflicts, what do you expect? Everyone to bow down when they walk by? Uh no. I'll Godwin this if you make me.
It doesn't mean you should abuse the troops. I'm against British involvment in the current wars, but that doesn't mean I blame it on the troops, I blame it on the British government. The scum who go around abusing troops just for doing their jobs deserve to be have the shit beaten out of them.
Liuzzo
07-03-2008, 17:54
They chose to fight, however. They chose to join a military that has been used as ours has been used in the last 50 years. Frankly speaking, I have less respect, as a default position for american soldiers in the 21st century than I would for german soldiers in world war 2. American soldiers have the choice, and they choose to join a military with history and goals that are dubious, at best.

I don't necessarily disrespect them for that choice, as you said, many might find it the best choice for them to make personally. However, even if that's the case for some, given how our military has been used in the last decades, anyone who chooses to join it is automatically at a dubious position with me.



Why should I respect you for doing the job you chose to do? I get up and do my job every morning too, I don't ask you for your respect. In fact I have a general default position that anyone who asks me for my respect probably doesn't deserve it. I don't respect words, I respect actions, and I don't find joining a military an action worthy of respect.

Now again, I don't necessarily disrespect people in the military, though I do disrespect the military as an entity, and anyone who chooses to go into such a career is automatically in a dubious position with me, but I leave myself open for those who had no other choice, or are under the misguided viewpoint that you're "helping the world" or "keeping america safe". I don't respect them for that choice, but I don't treat them with derision either



I don't "dishonor" you (though I laugh at the antiquated and outdated concept like "dishonor" as if you were somehow deserving of honor from me), I just disagree with the choice you made. I disagree that you chose to join an establishment that has been more of a force of oppression and violence than peace and democracy. That doesn't deserve my respect. Now, I won't necessarily fault you for buying into the dillusion, but I won't respect you for it either.

All of the things I have bolded are purely your opinion which you are entitled to. However, your freedom of speech was fought for by men and women who deserve your respect. The least you could do is appreciate that. As for getting up and doing your job...The next time your job requires the possibility of giving up your life for others let me know. It appears to me that you really don't value the concept of honor. That is fine and you are entitled to your opinion. The parts I've italicized above show a logical inconsistency in your argument.

The military has done a lot of good for people around the world. Ask the people on the southern side of the DMZ how they feel. Ask the people of Indonesia how they felt when US soldiers showed up to give them food, water, medical attention and help them rebuild after a Tsunami. The following is an article from 2006 showing humanitarian missions performed by the military in 99 countries around the world. We do nothing good now do we? (I am a reserve officer btw)

Your viewpoint of the American military has been tied to military engagements over the past decades. Many of these things I disagree with as well. But for you to discount the role of the military at home and abroad is disrespectful, disgusting, and at best ignorant. As a lawyer I thought you'd be more in the know.

The below links show that even in Afghanistan where were are at war, we are still doing things to help the populace.

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/December/20071218153407eaifas0.8815424.html

You can go to my simple google search to look for more info on this same topic. Your view is myopic at best. http://www.google.com/search?q=us+military+humanitarian+aid&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

U.S. Military Provides Humanitarian Aid in Afghanistan

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/December/20071218153407eaifas0.8815424.html
U.S. Military Humanitarian Efforts Planned for 99 Nations

Forces respond to disasters and deliver longer-term aid overseas
Close Window
Operation Smile volunteers help child
Petty Officer Patrick Nardulli cradles an Indonesian child being prepared for medical evacuation from Nias, Indonesia, to the U.S. Navy hospital ship USNS Mercy on April 7, 2005. Mercy and USNS Niagara Falls were operating off the coast of Nias, providing medical and humanitarian assistance to victims of the March 28, 2005, 8.7-magnitude earthquake. (DoD photo)
Enlarge Photo
Operation Smile volunteers help child
Petty Officer Patrick Nardulli cradles a child being prepared for medical evacuation aboard the U.S. Navy Hospital, Mercy. (DOD photo)

By Elizabeth Kelleher
Washington File Staff Writer

Washington – In 2006, U.S. military commands plan 556 humanitarian projects in 99 countries.

U.S. forces are improving water supplies in Ecuador, flood barriers in Bangladesh, a medical clinic in Uganda and schools in Kyrgyzstan. Military experts train local residents to remove land mines in Nicaragua and Vietnam.

By year-end, the U.S. military will have delivered 300,000 daily-rations packages overseas. Soldiers will have dug wells, built schools, and transported hospital equipment to villages from Croatia to Colombia. The Army will have trained officials from 11 African countries – Kenya, Ethiopia, Egypt, Eritrea, Djibouti, Seychelles, Burundi, Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania – to respond to disasters and deliver medical care.

The U.S. military has the capability to help after natural disasters and can promote the health and economic well-being of suffering populations. That capability and that commitment are fueling military humanitarian aid in places where U.S. forces have had no historic role.

The October 8, 2005, earthquake near Muzaffarabad, Pakistan, killed 87,000 people and stranded thousands in remote mountainous villages. The next day, Lieutenant Colonel Walter Bradley, commander of an Army aviation company preparing for training in Oklahoma, received a call – “could you fly rescue missions in Pakistan, instead?”

“None of us has ever seen this nation,” Bradley told the Washington File. “But we had to make a decision -- right now, and out the door.” In three days, they took apart a dozen Chinook helicopters and loaded them on airplanes headed to the region. “We were flying in the Himalayan Mountains in winter with no weather reports or radio communications,” said Bradley. The company stayed five months and logged 3,000 flight hours, moved 5,000 refugees and delivered 18 million pounds of supplies. (See related article.)

The military is called on repeatedly to move equipment and people quickly: It was among the “first responders” in 2004, after the tsunami in South Asia, and in 2005, after the mudslide in Guatemala. According to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the Pentagon spends roughly $58 million a year on humanitarian aidoverseas; in 2005, it spent an additional $117 million.

The U.S. military’s Quadrennial Defense Review, a strategy document, says the War on Terror requires humanitarian aid. It ranks diplomacy and development as tools as important as defense. (See related article.)

The military increasingly is working with traditional aid-giving agencies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

It delivers 10,000 wheelchairs donated by an NGO called the Wheelchair Foundation to children in mine-affected countries. And in Iraq and Afghanistan, “provincial reconstruction teams” include military personnel and representatives from USAID and the departments of State and Agriculture.
Close Window
Naval Hospital ship provides medical assistance
Operation Smile volunteers Janet Casabon Benowitz and Dr. Bill Pond anesthetize a young child before undergoing corrective plastic surgery on his cleft lip aboard U.S. Naval hospital ship USNS Mercy in Chittagong, Bangladesh, July 2. (Dept. of Defense photo)
Enlarge Photo
Naval Hospital ship provides medical assistance
Operation Smile volunteers Janet Casabon Benowitz and Dr. Bill Pond help a child in Chittagong, Bangladesh. (Dept. of Defense photo)

“It used to be that the military would just go out and knock things down,” Nicholas Eberstadt, defense expert and former Harvard University professor, said in an interview. But after the Cold War, it expanded beyond combat. Since September 11, Eberstadt said, there has been a rapid blurring between combat and disaster-relief missions.

“If we don’t do this, we leave an opening to al-Qaida,” said Thomas Henriksen, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a Stanford University research center.

OPINION POLLS SHOW CHANGED ATTITUDES

Pakistan, the world’s second-most populous Muslim nation that is battling extremism, is important to U.S. efforts to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, according to Henriksen. So it is notable that by December 2005, two months after Bradley’s company began its mission, a poll by ACNielsen Pakistan showed that the share of Pakistanis with favorable opinions of the United States had doubled, to 46 percent from 23 percent six months earlier.

A subsequent June 2006 survey by Pew Research Center found a less dramatic, but still positive, change in the approval rating of the United States by Pakistanis.

Both polls showed upswings in opinions in India and Indonesia toward the United States after the December 2004 Indonesia tsunami. At the peak of that disaster, 16,000 military personnel were helping.

Bradley does not need polls. Before leaving Pakistan, he bought one of its hottest-selling toys -- a plastic replica of the Chinook helicopters his unit flies. It cost only 59 cents, but to Bradley it is a priceless reminder that Pakistani children look up to the men and women in his unit.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the military delivers humanitarian aid under the “Command Emergency Response Program,” which allocates money for projects commanders suggest.

But as the military humanitarian role grows, some interest groups worry about the trend. Kevin Phelan, a spokesman for Doctors Without Borders, said that his organization is concerned about confusion caused by military personnel presenting themselves as humanitarian-aid workers. Five staff members of Doctors Without Borders were killed in 2004 in Afghanistan. “It creates real concerns for us if [locals] see us as part of an occupying army,” Phelan said. “Delivering aid impartially is an important aspect of humanitarian action.”

“We want to add to, not detract from, what NGOs are doing,” Army Major Philip Spangler told the Washington File. He recently worked on water sanitation problems in Chad, Niger and Mali, where he said NGOs have put in wells but not always maintained them. He said his command could fix water pumps, ambulances and other donated equipment. “A maintenance team with O-rings and hand tools can take [things] apart, fix them, show folks how to do repairs, and give them a kit. A $100 Craftsman tool set goes a long way.”

Spangler sees his work as part of a long and worthwhile military tradition. He said that when he visits African villages, children flock to hold his hands, each grabbing a finger. “They know that you are an American, and you are a soldier. America has done a lot of good things in a lot of parts of the world,” he said, “and those things are not forgotten.”

For more information on U.S. aid, see U.S. Response to the Earthquake in South Asia and Humanitarian Assistance and Refugees.

(The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
Neo Art
07-03-2008, 18:03
All of the things I have bolded are purely your opinion which you are entitled to. However, your freedom of speech was fought for by men and women who deserve your respect.

Your two points are blatantly hypocritical. if I have the right to an opinion as I chose to form it, then nobody deserves anything from me. If I have the right to my opinion, then nobody deserves to have me form any opinion of them than the one I choose to form.

The least you could do is appreciate that. As for getting up and doing your job...The next time your job requires the possibility of giving up your life for others let me know.

And again we get to the crux of my point. "I'm more deserving of respect because I chose to do something dangerous!" And once again I point out that it was your choice. You chose to take on that position, you chose to put yourself at risk, you chose to join the military. That was entirely your choice. You don't deserve to be treated any differently because of your choices than I would treat anyone else.

It appears to me that you really don't value the concept of honor.

No, I don't. "honor" is the concept of a direct relation between one's virtues and their status within society. Honor is all about the belief that you should be treated better by society for the choices you made. It is an outdated concept, and one that has no place in modern living, for your place in society should be no more, and no less than my own, than anyone elses. That's what freedom and democracy is about. The values that you supposedly fight to uphold.

Funny how on one hand you talk about those brave people who fight for equality, and on the other hand argue that they should have a special place in our society...in direct opposition to the values you supposedly try to uphold.

But you know what, i can play your game too. You know what profession has been the steadfast defendant of liberty? You know what profession requires each and every member to swear an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states? You know what profession was instrumental in getting slavery abolished, female enfranchisement, and tirelessly defending our basic rights?

Lawyers.

And for someone who is all about "respect" for those who help defend the liberties of our nation, I'm sure you would show equal respect for the profession that has helped defend those freedoms, not on foreign shores, but in our own courtrooms.

As a lawyer I thought you'd be more in the know.

Whoops, guess not. But that's ok, I guess defenders of the constitution only deserve respect when they're your profession. Guess it's good that I don't care about getting your respect, but you seem to care a whole lot about getting mine.

And as I said, anyone who feels they're entitled to my respect, automatically is less likely to get it.
Neo Art
07-03-2008, 18:09
Also Neo, you forget about the National Guard and how they help domestically. This from the big, bad, and evil military.

You mean the national guard who couldn't help out with disaster relief in Katrina to adequate levels because they were in Iraq?

Yeah, real domestic help there. I'd have some actual modicrum of respect for the national guard, if they really were NATIONAL guard, and not merely another pool to draw from to help fight foreign wars while ostensibly being about disaster relief and domestic aid.
Dyakovo
07-03-2008, 18:14
You mean the national guard who couldn't help out with disaster relief in Katrina to adequate levels because they were in Iraq?

And that was their fault how?

Mind you, I agree that you have the right to form any opinion you want about the military, I'm not jumping on that bandwagon; even if I do disagree with you...
Neo Art
07-03-2008, 18:21
And that was their fault how?

It wasn't their fault they got deployed to fight an imperialist action. It was their fault for joining an organization that has for the past several years done little substantial other than fight imperialist actions and clean up the aftermath.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. I at least have enough respect for the military to believe that they're smart enough to know what they're getting into. Apparently everyone else thinks they're just honest, but dumb, and really mean well but are incapable of understanding what they're doing.

And people tell me I disrespect the military...
Dyakovo
07-03-2008, 18:24
It wasn't their fault they got deployed to fight an imperialist action. It was their fault for joining an organization that has for the past several years done little substantial other than fight imperialist actions and clean up the aftermath.

Fair enough
John primms monkeys
07-03-2008, 18:26
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/7282348.stm

aww didums. i LOL'd quite heartily. i still keep bursting into giggles. hahahaha! those poor 'heroes', nobody respects their stupid blind patriotism or wide-eyed flyboy-ism. hehehehehhehehehehhee! fuckwits.

you know people like you make me sick those soldiers out there risking their lives for you just so you can put them down like they did not even do anything i would like to see you go out into the battle feild and fight off angry people trying to kill you you bastard I lost my brother and my sister in the war and my cousin know go fuck off:sniper::sniper:
Sumamba Buwhan
07-03-2008, 18:31
You mean $ to congressmen/women by special interest groups and lobbyists?

You lost me



This post amuses me. Yay. :)

:fluffle:

This picture says it all IMHO.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/funny-pictures-soldier-and-cat.jpg

:fluffle:
Laerod
07-03-2008, 19:40
When your military is involved in unpopular, unjust conflicts, what do you expect? Everyone to bow down when they walk by? Uh no. I'll Godwin this if you make me.Might wanna read up on what Godwin's law actually says...
Greater Trostia
07-03-2008, 19:46
So when are you willing to lay your life on the line for freedom and democracy?

Freedom and democracy? Sorry, that's not quite what the issue is here. From the mouth of Defence Secretary Des Browne:

"We must defend our forces' right to wear their uniforms in public."

And it's not even about the "right to wear their uniforms," but rather a "right to wear their uniforms without getting made fun of."

So I can see why you might prefer it if this was about some high-minded ideal like democracy, and not about a bunch of silliness.
Jello Biafra
07-03-2008, 19:49
This is tough. On one hand, a significant part of the military profession deals in death, and that isn't exactly something to admire. On the other, if the economy is so bad that people willingly choose to join the military, then that reflects worse on the economy than on the individual joining the military. The military also messes a lot of these people up for life, and so it is senseless to heap further abuse on them.
Sanmartin
07-03-2008, 19:49
This is tough. On one hand, a significant part of the military profession deals in death, and that isn't exactly something to admire. On the other, if the economy is so bad that people willingly choose to join the military, then that reflects worse on the economy than on the individual joining the military. The military also messes a lot of these people up for life, and so it is senseless to heap further abuse on them.

Ah, so people only join because the economy sucks? You must be John Kerry.

Most people join the military for other reasons.
Jello Biafra
07-03-2008, 19:59
Ah, so people only join because the economy sucks? You must be John Kerry.

Most people join the military for other reasons.Sure, there are other reasons, but the lack of other opportunities is the major reason for most people. If that reason didn't exist, the other reasons for joining would not be sufficient for them to actually join.
Ifreann
07-03-2008, 20:05
All of the things I have bolded are purely your opinion which you are entitled to. However, your freedom of speech was fought for by men and women who deserve your respect.

When was the last time that the average American's right to freedom of speech was actually under threat and that threat was in some way removed by the US military? I'm certainly not a historian of any sort, but to my knowledge it was back when your country was first formed. If that is the case then there is not a single soldier alive today that has fought for NA's right to freedom of speech, and thus not a single soldier who should automatically deserve his respect. Unless you think one can earn respect by choosing the same line of work as someone else who has earned respect.
Glorious Freedonia
07-03-2008, 20:14
Dear Knights of Liberty,

I am not sure what problem you have with domino theory. I think that it makes complete sense for the world to unite in opposition to communism and when communists invade a weak free country, the world rallies behind the invaded country and the UN forces fight and defeat the communist invaders.

I just do not get it. Communist forces had a global agenda of world domination. Why is it so bad to respond with a global agenda of prevention of communist expansion?

As far as Iraq goes. Saddam was a dictator. Most Iraqis are better off with him dead. The fact that there are terrorists running around in Iraq causing problems for innocent civillians is all the more reason that we should be supportive of military efforts to fight them. Iraqi forces and their American and other allies are doing a splendid and brave job of confronting the evil terrorists. There have been problems and errors as there have been in all wars, but our guys are the good guys. We should never surrender to terrorists.
Neo Art
07-03-2008, 20:16
Unless you think one can earn respect by choosing the same line of work as someone else who has earned respect.

Apparently he does. And with that in mind, since he feels that if someone is a member of a profession that "protects our rights" and I have pointed out earlier, lawyers in this country have worked tirelessly to secure and protect fundamental liberties, I, as a member of such profession, expect his apology for treating me in such a disrespectful mannor.

After all, lawyers have done a great deal to protect rights in this country, and I am a lawyer. Accordingly, I should be treated with the same amount of respect he expects me to treat him with. Therefore, I'll await his apology.
Norsdal
07-03-2008, 20:19
I have a lot of respect for the military. If you don't you are most likely a stupid self centered douchebag.
Sumamba Buwhan
07-03-2008, 20:22
I think we should start making soldiers, lawyers and anyone else who belongs to a profession that is or was involved in fighting for the rights of others start wearing arm bands so that they can get the recognition they deserve. :D
Neo Art
07-03-2008, 20:26
I think we should start making soldiers, lawyers and anyone else who belongs to a profession that is or was involved in fighting for the rights of others start wearing arm bands so that they can get the recognition they deserve. :D

can mine have stars on it?
Sanmartin
07-03-2008, 20:28
Apparently he does. And with that in mind, since he feels that if someone is a member of a profession that "protects our rights" and I have pointed out earlier, lawyers in this country have worked tirelessly to secure and protect fundamental liberties, I, as a member of such profession, expect his apology for treating me in such a disrespectful mannor.

After all, lawyers have done a great deal to protect rights in this country, and I am a lawyer. Accordingly, I should be treated with the same amount of respect he expects me to treat him with. Therefore, I'll await his apology.

Ah, but there's little risk in lawyering. I mean, you don't go to jail with your clients when they lose...
Sumamba Buwhan
07-03-2008, 20:30
can mine have stars on it?

that would be pretty huh?
Ifreann
07-03-2008, 20:36
Ah, but there's little risk in lawyering. I mean, you don't go to jail with your clients when they lose...

Maybe not as much risk as hanging out in a battlefield, but sometimes one's client could take exception to your inability to get them off the hook.
Gravlen
07-03-2008, 20:38
Ah, but there's little risk in lawyering. I mean, you don't go to jail with your clients when they lose...

Are you speaking universally, or in the US?

Because at least one of those claims is fatally flawed.
Gravlen
07-03-2008, 20:41
Maybe not as much risk as hanging out in a battlefield, but sometimes one's client could take exception to your inability to get them off the hook.

Or a government or the opposing side - or a random lynch mob for that matter - could take exception to the good work they're doing.
Laerod
07-03-2008, 20:43
As far as Iraq goes. Saddam was a dictator. Most Iraqis are better off with him dead. Proof?
The fact that there are terrorists running around in Iraq causing problems for innocent civillians is all the more reason that we should be supportive of military efforts to fight them. Terrorists that weren't present in nearly the scope they are now and that came in in direct response to military efforts. Iraqi forces and their American and other allies are doing a splendid and brave job of confronting the evil terrorists. There have been problems and errors as there have been in all wars, but our guys are the good guys. We should never surrender to terrorists.Saddam was doing a better job at confronting the evil terrorists.
Laerod
07-03-2008, 20:45
Ah, but there's little risk in lawyering. I mean, you don't go to jail with your clients when they lose...Sure. That would only apply if you ranked professions by merit alone. If you factor risk in, lawyers are further down the line. The top three places would likely be firemen, teachers, and then cops.
JuNii
07-03-2008, 20:58
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/7282348.stm

aww didums. i LOL'd quite heartily. i still keep bursting into giggles. hahahaha! those poor 'heroes', nobody respects their stupid blind patriotism or wide-eyed flyboy-ism. hehehehehhehehehehhee! fuckwits.

yep... no one respects them until the bombs start falling.

Those RAF 'flyboys' did alot during WWII and usually it's the military that gives the biggest assists during natural disasters.
Liuzzo
07-03-2008, 21:18
Your two points are blatantly hypocritical. if I have the right to an opinion as I chose to form it, then nobody deserves anything from me. If I have the right to my opinion, then nobody deserves to have me form any opinion of them than the one I choose to form.



And again we get to the crux of my point. "I'm more deserving of respect because I chose to do something dangerous!" And once again I point out that it was your choice. You chose to take on that position, you chose to put yourself at risk, you chose to join the military. That was entirely your choice. You don't deserve to be treated any differently because of your choices than I would treat anyone else.

Do you respect police officers? Do you respect doctors? How about paremedics? How about EMS first responders?



No, I don't. "honor" is the concept of a direct relation between one's virtues and their status within society. Honor is all about the belief that you should be treated better by society for the choices you made. It is an outdated concept, and one that has no place in modern living, for your place in society should be no more, and no less than my own, than anyone elses. That's what freedom and democracy is about. The values that you supposedly fight to uphold.

Yes, choosing to give selflessly for others is honorable. I am sorry you don't feel that way. Volunteers, charity workers, they are all honorable.

Funny how on one hand you talk about those brave people who fight for equality, and on the other hand argue that they should have a special place in our society...in direct opposition to the values you supposedly try to uphold.

But you know what, i can play your game too. You know what profession has been the steadfast defendant of liberty? You know what profession requires each and every member to swear an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states? You know what profession was instrumental in getting slavery abolished, female enfranchisement, and tirelessly defending our basic rights?

I solemnly swear to uphold the Constituion of the United states of American and defend her against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Lawyers.

And for someone who is all about "respect" for those who help defend the liberties of our nation, I'm sure you would show equal respect for the profession that has helped defend those freedoms, not on foreign shores, but in our own courtrooms.

Are you a civil rights lawyer? Are you a Constitutional Law scholar? What type of law do you really practice? Maybe then I'd give you more honor. Just being a lawyer doesn't make you a defender of the Constitution.



Whoops, guess not. But that's ok, I guess defenders of the constitution only deserve respect when they're your profession. Guess it's good that I don't care about getting your respect, but you seem to care a whole lot about getting mine.

Honestly, I care not for your respect or your kindness. You used to be sensible, kind, considerate... What happened to you? Shit, I'd spit in your face and there'd be nothing you could do about it but cry about the lawsuit there'd be while you were on your back. Also, you don't even know what my profession is, besides a reservist.

And as I said, anyone who feels they're entitled to my respect, automatically is less likely to get it.

I'm surely glad that most people don't feel like you. I also like how you ignored all of the humanitarian things that the military does. You glossed over it because it doesn't support your vengeful rant. Go back and look at it and tell me the military does nothing good for the world.
Liuzzo
07-03-2008, 21:20
You mean the national guard who couldn't help out with disaster relief in Katrina to adequate levels because they were in Iraq?

Yeah, real domestic help there. I'd have some actual modicrum of respect for the national guard, if they really were NATIONAL guard, and not merely another pool to draw from to help fight foreign wars while ostensibly being about disaster relief and domestic aid.

Hmm whose fault was it that they were not in their posts? Did they choose to go overseas instead of being at home? If they were there more lives could have been saved. The failure here goes to GWB and Fema, not the military. I hope your arguments are more convincing and less emotional in a court room.
Laerod
07-03-2008, 21:21
My argument is that US intervention in Latin America is significantly different in scope and regularity than Soviet intervention. While detestable, it does not even compare to the brutality, violence and terror of Soviet interventions abroad.It doesn't compare to Soviet intervention, no, but that doesn't mean its not comparable.
Andaluciae
07-03-2008, 21:21
Do me a favor. Before you insult me for something I said, do make sure I actually said it. Point out to me, if you will, where I said the US and the USSR were "morally equivalent". You won't, because it's not there. My family lost people to Stalin, I know they weren't equal.

But to frame the cold war as some sort of "battle between good and evil" is nonsensical. The US didn't have clean hands in the whole thing, and to argue that the cold war conflict had anything to do with the US desire to spread peace and love and democracy and not two emerging superpowers jockying for position on a global stage...is ludicrus.

At best the cold war was a battle between evil, and not quite so evil.

I've not been arguing that, nor would I ever argue that it was a "good v. evil" conflict, but I have argued that US military force served as a deterrent element towards Soviet aggression against Western Europe, permitting the rebirth, and survival of the liberal democracies in that region. Whether it was out of self interest or otherwise, American military forces defended friendlier regimes than did the Soviet Red Army. It was largely a conflict wherein both sides shed many of their moral principles, but the record of the United States, both domestically and internationally, is far cleaner than that of the USSR, and can, in no way, be called "evil".

Further, those states in which nasty pro-US dictatorships developed, especially in Latin America and East Asia, have developed along a far more positive line, than did the pro-Soviet states did. Comparing the health of civil society and democratic institutions today in the Koreas, comparing Cuba to Chile, comparing China and Taiwan, all reflects poorly on the Soviet system, and its ability to reform.

Further, I do not retract my insult, you claims are along the lines of the more mainstream version of the moral equivalence hypothesis (because no one, besides Andaras Prime, could ever consider the hardline version). Your proposition that it was "evil" and "less evil" is ridiculous. A calcified, unreformable system, versus a system with flaws, especially in execution, but capable of reform is not what you claim it to be.

I would refer you to Gaddis. and his discussions of morality in the Cold War.
Andaluciae
07-03-2008, 21:26
How easily one dismisses those pesky details that don't support our argument...

My argument is that US intervention in Latin America is significantly different in scope and regularity than Soviet intervention. While detestable, it does not even compare to the brutality, violence and terror of Soviet interventions abroad.




Actually I won't take your word for it.

The reason that the AK47 is on the flag is not because they're part of the Soviet empire, but because that was the weapon they used in their war for independence. It must irk you that leftist nations supported a war for independence against a western European power.

So, when a leftist nation apparently supports a war against colonialism and imperialism, this somehow becomes evidence of imperialism. Sure.

Mozambique was a prominent example of the proliferation of small arms manufactured by the Soviet Union for use in the developing world. My argument is based off of the fact that these weapons were used to placate win warlords in conflicts, and that these weapons served to intensify the lethality and duration of small-scale conflicts. In my opinion, the world would be better off if the USSR had not exported these weapons.

But, hey, ignore subtexts.
Liuzzo
07-03-2008, 21:36
It wasn't their fault they got deployed to fight an imperialist action. It was their fault for joining an organization that has for the past several years done little substantial other than fight imperialist actions and clean up the aftermath.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. I at least have enough respect for the military to believe that they're smart enough to know what they're getting into. Apparently everyone else thinks they're just honest, but dumb, and really mean well but are incapable of understanding what they're doing.

And people tell me I disrespect the military...

So you're saying we're smart, and we willingly want to go overseas and fight wars of convenience? I'm just trying to wrap my head around your vitriol. The CinC misusing the military is not their fault. Would you prefer no one signed up, because after all their going to be used for the forces of evil? It's be nice to live in your world where we could open ourselves up to attack because, "we don't like the way you're treating us, booh friggety hoo." You refuse to see that people join the military for altruistic motives. You also choice to ignore all of the humanitarian good the military does. Your ignoring these items does not make them any less REAL.

So, next time you get pulled over say, "why did you pull me over motherfucker? Don't you know I'm a lawyer and I am the greatest things for democracy on this Earth?" After all, he expects that you are going to respect him. So when he gives you a little attitude, (as many cops do) go apeshit on him on him like you're doing with me. After all police choose jobs where they will have to shoot people at times. Aren't they smart enough to know they might be misused by the civilian director of the police force? That this person who works with the chief may use them for their political dirty work. After all, it's the same with the military. Why would anyone join the LAPD after all of their problems? We know they're racist so why would any smart person join a racist organization?

Once again, I hope your arguments are well reasoned and less emotional in court. Don't worry, I'm through my 2 MA's and halfway to my law degree as well. So I guess then when I am a lawyer (going for the NY bar, you know the hardest one in the nation) then I'll be doubly as Captain America as you are right?
Gift-of-god
07-03-2008, 21:37
My argument is that US intervention in Latin America is significantly different in scope and regularity than Soviet intervention.

And I agree. Soviet intervention in Latin America was far less brutal and tyrannical.

While detestable, it does not even compare to the brutality, violence and terror of Soviet interventions abroad.

Ooops, I guess I disagree. I think US support of dictatorships in Latin America is quite comparable to Eastern Europe under Soviet influence.

Mozambique was a prominent example of the proliferation of small arms manufactured by the Soviet Union for use in the developing world. My argument is based off of the fact that these weapons were used to placate win warlords in conflicts, and that these weapons served to intensify the lethality and duration of small-scale conflicts. In my opinion, the world would be better off if the USSR had not exported these weapons.

But, hey, ignore subtexts.

Those same small arms that allowed them to win their independence against Portugal, and then fight a civil war against guerillas supported by a foreign regime? Yeah, it really sucks that they had access to such weapons.:rolleyes:

Or would that be cool if it was an M-16? Because then you could use it to support your myth that the USA doesn't have a foreign policy dominated by realpolitik.
Liuzzo
07-03-2008, 21:41
Apparently he does. And with that in mind, since he feels that if someone is a member of a profession that "protects our rights" and I have pointed out earlier, lawyers in this country have worked tirelessly to secure and protect fundamental liberties, I, as a member of such profession, expect his apology for treating me in such a disrespectful mannor.

After all, lawyers have done a great deal to protect rights in this country, and I am a lawyer. Accordingly, I should be treated with the same amount of respect he expects me to treat him with. Therefore, I'll await his apology.

You have treated me with respect? I laff at your joke. Are you a constitutional lawyer or a civil rights lawyer? Otherwise you're fighting for "damages" or the right of people even you know are guilty. btw, I'll be you soon. Focusing on Constitutional Law.
Liuzzo
07-03-2008, 21:46
When was the last time that the average American's right to freedom of speech was actually under threat and that threat was in some way removed by the US military? I'm certainly not a historian of any sort, but to my knowledge it was back when your country was first formed. If that is the case then there is not a single soldier alive today that has fought for NA's right to freedom of speech, and thus not a single soldier who should automatically deserve his respect. Unless you think one can earn respect by choosing the same line of work as someone else who has earned respect.

Right, soldiers during the civil war fought for no one's rights and liberties. Perhaps the military should let all the threats gather around the world. Then when they do we can all dessert our post. After all, we wouldn't want to be used for the wrong purposes.
Ifreann
07-03-2008, 21:47
Or a government or the opposing side - or a random lynch mob for that matter - could take exception to the good work they're doing.
That too.
Sure. That would only apply if you ranked professions by merit alone. If you factor risk in, lawyers are further down the line. The top three places would likely be firemen, teachers, and then cops.
Teachers are more at risk than cops? wut?
I'm surely glad that most people don't feel like you. I also like how you ignored all of the humanitarian things that the military does. You glossed over it because it doesn't support your vengeful rant. Go back and look at it and tell me the military does nothing good for the world.
I don't think he ever claimed that the military never did any good. Maybe I just missed it though.
Right, soldiers during the civil war fought for no one's rights and liberties.
How many civil war veterans are still alive today? I'm going to go right ahead and guess none. My point still stands, not a single soldier alive today has actually protected the right to freedom of speech.
Perhaps the military should let all the threats gather around the world. Then when they do we can all dessert our post. After all, we wouldn't want to be used for the wrong purposes.

http://castironbalcony.media2.org/wp-content/strawman.jpg
Lord Tothe
07-03-2008, 21:56
I have my disagreements with Dubya's administration and his (not mine) foreign policies, but that's no reason to disrespect the soldiers stuck with the consequences of his "leadership". Show some respect for these guys. Soldiers returning to the States, England, or anywhere else deserve at least a smidgin of respect for volunteering to serve in the military, even when we vehemently disagree with the wars they are ordered into.

When you join the military, you essentially sign away your rights to fredom of speech, freedom of asociation, etc. and unless you are explicitly ordered to commit a war crime, you are required to obey orders. We can (and some of you probaby will) argue all week over whether Iraq is a giant war crime, but these guys did what they believed was right. If hindsight shows they were wrong

Don't spit on them or call them 'baby killers' or otherwise taunt them. That's just childish. Restraint shows maturity.
Laerod
07-03-2008, 22:01
Teachers are more at risk than cops? wut?Firemen face a ruthless and merciless enemy and risk their lives to fight it. Their job is easily as dangerous as that of a soldier on combat duty. Teachers may not necessarily risk their lives as often as cops, however teachers are rarely armed, whereas cops usually are. Note also I never said the scale was based on risk alone, merely that risk was factored in.
Glorious Freedonia
07-03-2008, 22:10
Proof?
Terrorists that weren't present in nearly the scope they are now and that came in in direct response to military efforts. Saddam was doing a better job at confronting the evil terrorists.

I assume that you agree that I do not need to prove that Saddam was a dictator. I only have to prove that most Iraqis are better off with him dead. It is more than just Saddam who is dead. The old dictatorial system is dead with him. Now there is a brand new democracy that is having the sorts of problems that go along with a new democracy.

The old system favored a minority of the Iraqi population and oppressed everyone else. This goes far to prove that most Iraqis are better off now. Second, the US taxpayers have pumped a lot of money into the Iraqi infrastructure and economy. During Saddam you did not see anywhere near this level of foreign investment in Iraq. The security situation can only improve over the decades to come. Increased stability is going to help the future generations of Iraqis who will grow up in an increasingly stable democratic land.

I think this proves that the economy is better now, a previously oppressed majority now has freedom, and the future Iraqis who outnumber the present ones will benefit tremendously.

Yes, terrorists have come to Iraq to fight the newly freed Iraqis. The Iraqis and their allies are fighting back and winning. Would you rather that terrorists go somewhere else like Israel? Do you think that the terrorists are going to overthrow a democracy? They have been trying to do this in Israel for decades and it has not happened.
Liuzzo
07-03-2008, 22:11
yep... no one respects them until the bombs start falling.

Those RAF 'flyboys' did alot during WWII and usually it's the military that gives the biggest assists during natural disasters.

Shh, don't tell anyone that the military is used for good sometimes. As far as the response people asked about our defending people's freedom. WW1WW2, ring a bell. Unless you thought the plan for world domination didn't mean us. Soldiers helped free Europe and all other lands from being conquered by the Germans. I agree with NEO that since then the military hasn't been used for the best purposes with the regard to our invasions of other lands. This is not something I can deny. But his response that the military is some sort of evil enterprise controlled by evil men just makes me cringe.
Ifreann
07-03-2008, 22:16
Firemen face a ruthless and merciless enemy and risk their lives to fight it. Their job is easily as dangerous as that of a soldier on combat duty. Teachers may not necessarily risk their lives as often as cops, however teachers are rarely armed, whereas cops usually are. Note also I never said the scale was based on risk alone, merely that risk was factored in.

Ah. Makes much more sense now.
SeathorniaII
07-03-2008, 22:19
yep... no one respects them until the bombs start falling.

And tell me, who does the dropping of them bombs?

Or is that just a detail that you're going to conveniently forget?

Shh, don't tell anyone that the military is used for good sometimes. As far as the response people asked about our defending people's freedom. WW1WW2, ring a bell. Unless you thought the plan for world domination didn't mean us. Soldiers helped free Europe and all other lands from being conquered by the German SOLDIERS. I agree with NEO that since then the military hasn't been used for the best purposes with the regard to our invasions of other lands. This is not something I can deny. But his response that the military is some sort of evil enterprise controlled by evil men just makes me cringe.

I'd like to bring to your attention that Soldiers are just as fallible as every other branch. They are not automatically deserving of respect anymore than a cop is automatically deserving of respect. Even a fireman isn't automatically deserving - it's just a lot easier for them (For reasons why they might not deserve it, a Simpson's episode where the firemen steal the property they are supposed to save comes to mind).
Bakamyht
07-03-2008, 22:20
No, what's pathetic is that people think they should be able to publicly boast about dropping bombs on unarmed civilians for a living, and not get criticised for it.

People in the UK military either joined up after the murder/torture-fest that we call the War on Terror started, or they have served their 'minimum service period' (longest of which is five years - ie anyone joining before 2001 has definitely served it) and can therefore leave. Either way, the "we didn't choose to be involved in this" bleating doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny.
Neo Art
07-03-2008, 22:23
Do you respect police officers? Do you respect doctors? How about paremedics? How about EMS first responders?

As I said before, I don't respect someone merely for chosing a profession. I respect acts. I respect what someone does. Being a cop doesn't make you automatically deserving of respect, nor a doctor, nor a paramedic, nor an EMT.

What you do in that position is what matters. You have to earn my respect. And the mere fact that you're employed as a cop, or a doctor, or a teacher, or a fighterfighter, or a lawyer or, yes, even a soldier, is not sufficient to earn my respect by itself.

Just being a lawyer doesn't make you a defender of the Constitution.

Nor does JUST being a soldier. Nor does JUST being a cop, or a teacher, or a doctor, or a paramedic, or a fighterfighter, or an EMT automatically earn you my respect.

You're damned right, just because I'm a lawyer doesn't mean I've earned your respect. And just because you're a soldier doesn't mean you've earned mine.
SeathorniaII
07-03-2008, 22:25
We fight for human rights all around the world all the time.

All of you all the time? I highly doubt that, considering North Korean soldiers don't.
Glorious Freedonia
07-03-2008, 22:31
When was the last time that the average American's right to freedom of speech was actually under threat and that threat was in some way removed by the US military? I'm certainly not a historian of any sort, but to my knowledge it was back when your country was first formed. If that is the case then there is not a single soldier alive today that has fought for NA's right to freedom of speech, and thus not a single soldier who should automatically deserve his respect. Unless you think one can earn respect by choosing the same line of work as someone else who has earned respect.

We fight for human rights all around the world all the time.
Laerod
07-03-2008, 22:35
I assume that you agree that I do not need to prove that Saddam was a dictator. Indeed. He most certainly was a dictator, and a cruel one at that.I only have to prove that most Iraqis are better off with him dead. Actually even less than that. You need to prove that Iraqis are currently better off with him no longer in power, though you have to take into account how they were off then and how they are off now. It is more than just Saddam who is dead. The old dictatorial system is dead with him. Now there is a brand new democracy that is having the sorts of problems that go along with a new democracy.Yes, no, but overall yes.

The old system favored a minority of the Iraqi population and oppressed everyone else. Yes it did.This goes far to prove that most Iraqis are better off now. No it doesn't. In fact, it falls short. Iraqis being off bad a while ago is no proof that they are better off now. Likewise, simply because the cause of that (Saddam) has been removed, one cannot automatically assume that nothing worse took its place. Second, the US taxpayers have pumped a lot of money into the Iraqi infrastructure and economy. During Saddam you did not see anywhere near this level of foreign investment in Iraq. Granted.The security situation can only improve over the decades to come. This is not true. It could decrease. One likely reason for this could be the current conflict in Northern Iraq.Increased stability is going to help the future generations of Iraqis who will grow up in an increasingly stable democratic land. Yes it would. Unfortunately, Iraq is a hell of a lot less stable now than it was under Saddam. Hence there are more Iraqis voting with their feet than back then. Speaking badly about Saddam risked getting you killed. Now, going to the market or being in the wrong street can get you killed.

I think this proves that the economy is better now, No it doesn't. There is plenty reason to believe the economy is doing better now than under Saddam (and the UN embargo), and I agree with you that it is better. However you haven't proved it at all.a previously oppressed majority now has freedom, And the entire population has lost the freedom of movement, habitation, and life on account of reduced security.and the future Iraqis who outnumber the present ones will benefit tremendously.We're not talking about future Iraqis. We're talking about present-day and under-Saddam-day Iraqis.

Yes, terrorists have come to Iraq to fight the newly freed Iraqis. The Iraqis and their allies are fighting back and winning.Largely irrelevant so long as no real progress in security for all is made. Would you rather that terrorists go somewhere else like Israel? Do you think that the terrorists are going to overthrow a democracy? They have been trying to do this in Israel for decades and it has not happened.Irrelevant bullshit.
Neo Art
07-03-2008, 22:38
I agree with NEO that since then the military hasn't been used for the best purposes with the regard to our invasions of other lands. This is not something I can deny. But his response that the military is some sort of evil enterprise controlled by evil men just makes me cringe.

The military is not an "evil enterprise" but it is one that is often utilized for evil goals. Sometimes good, yes, but often evil and self motivated as well. And that's the point. I'm sure some people join the military to do good. Some people join the military because it's the best choice and they have no other options. Some join the military to shoot arabs in the face. The mere fact that you joined the military doesn't earn you any credit with me.

Moreover, even if you did join the military to do good, you did so knowing (or should have known) that there was a very realistic possiblity that you'd be called to do things that aren't very good. If you want to do good things, there are many ways to do good things. Join amnesty, join the peace corp, join the red cross, join teach for america. Why, if your motivation is to do good, would you join an institution where you recognize that there is a realistic possiblity that you will be obligated to do things not very good?

And if your motivation is to "protect america" or "spread democracy" then you really should look at how the military has been used in the last 50 years, and figure out if that has been the purpose and function of the military in the last half century. I applaud wanting to help the world and do good things, but there are many ways to do that that don't involve the possibility that you will one day be obligated to kill someone who was only trying to protect his family from what he viewed as an imperialist invader.
Laerod
07-03-2008, 22:38
What you do in that position is what matters. You have to earn my respect. And the mere fact that you're employed as a cop, or a doctor, or a teacher, or a fighterfighter, or a lawyer or, yes, even a soldier, is not sufficient to earn my respect by itself. A what now? =P
Laerod
07-03-2008, 22:39
We fight for human rights all around the world all the time.Depends. If you're American, then this is most certainly not the case.
Sparkelle
07-03-2008, 22:51
A what now? =P

you don't know what a fire fighter is? A person who stops fire. Stop saying firemen you guys that's not PC tsktsk.
Ifreann
07-03-2008, 22:52
We fight for human rights all around the world all the time.

I'll thank you to leave those goalposts where you found them.
SeathorniaII
07-03-2008, 22:53
you don't know what a fire fighter is? A person who stops fire. Stop saying firemen you guys that's not PC tsktsk.

Yes, but what's a fighterfighter?
SeathorniaII
07-03-2008, 22:54
When was the last time that America fought an enemy with a good human rights record?

Does this in any way make every soldier the pinnacle shining beacon of human rights?

No.

Therefore, they still have to earn respect, just like everybody else.
Laerod
07-03-2008, 22:56
you don't know what a fire fighter is? A person who stops fire. Stop saying firemen you guys that's not PC tsktsk.Read the bolded part, silly. ;)
I think that we need to think about the future Iraqis and I think that they will be better off for what we are helping the present generation do today. We always fight wars with a forward thinking mindset. At least we should.Two completely different buckets of coffee. Of course we should think of the future. That does not mean the present day population is doing as well as the past day population, and it isn't relevant at all when answering that specific question.
When was the last time that America fought an enemy with a good human rights record?When's the last time the Soviet Union or China did?
Frozopia
07-03-2008, 22:56
When are idiots going to realise that the fucking soldiers dont choose who they fight?

Fucksake they could just as easily be defending their homes, why is it neccessary to attack them?
Glorious Freedonia
07-03-2008, 22:58
I think that we need to think about the future Iraqis and I think that they will be better off for what we are helping the present generation do today. We always fight wars with a forward thinking mindset. At least we should.
Glorious Freedonia
07-03-2008, 22:59
Depends. If you're American, then this is most certainly not the case.

When was the last time that America fought an enemy with a good human rights record?
SeathorniaII
07-03-2008, 23:00
When are idiots going to realise that the fucking soldiers dont choose who they fight?

Fucksake they could just as easily be defending their homes, why is it neccessary to attack them?

Because they can and do choose whether they fight.

Until they learn this, they'll have no respect from me. Those that do learn it might be able to earn it.
Glorious Freedonia
07-03-2008, 23:01
As I said before, I don't respect someone merely for chosing a profession. I respect acts. I respect what someone does. Being a cop doesn't make you automatically deserving of respect, nor a doctor, nor a paramedic, nor an EMT.

What you do in that position is what matters. You have to earn my respect. And the mere fact that you're employed as a cop, or a doctor, or a teacher, or a fighterfighter, or a lawyer or, yes, even a soldier, is not sufficient to earn my respect by itself.



Nor does JUST being a soldier. Nor does JUST being a cop, or a teacher, or a doctor, or a paramedic, or a fighterfighter, or an EMT automatically earn you my respect.

You're damned right, just because I'm a lawyer doesn't mean I've earned your respect. And just because you're a soldier doesn't mean you've earned mine.

I am a lawyer too. I respect you and all of our colleagues for the work that we do when we deal with disputes in accordance with the ideals of our profession. I respect soldiers and anyone else that puts their lives and safety on the line for us.
Neo Art
07-03-2008, 23:03
I respect soldiers and anyone else that puts their lives and safety on the line for us.

And you know what? So do I. I just don't kneejerk into the assumption that much of what the military has done in the last 50 years has been "for us"
Philosopy
07-03-2008, 23:04
Sorry, I do not understand what you are tring to express.

He asked you when the last time America had to fight for its own right for free speech, you answered they fought for the rights of others all the time. In other words, you answered a different question to the one he asked.
Glorious Freedonia
07-03-2008, 23:05
I'll thank you to leave those goalposts where you found them.

Sorry, I do not understand what you are tring to express.
Ifreann
07-03-2008, 23:20
He asked you when the last time America had to fight for its own right for free speech, you answered they fought for the rights of others all the time. In other words, you answered a different question to the one he asked.

Well, I asked Liuzzo, but yes. Or more accurately, I pointed out that all the soldiers that actually did fight for America's freedoms of speech are dead, and thus he can't claim that all soldiers deserve respect for fighting for that right.
Philosopy
07-03-2008, 23:21
Well, I asked Liuzzo, but yes. Or more accurately, I pointed out that all the soldiers that actually did fight for America's freedoms of speech are dead, and thus he can't claim that all soldiers deserve respect for fighting for that right.

Pfft, take your time to clarify. I only came into this thread because all the others were boring. :p
Laerod
07-03-2008, 23:26
Pfft, take your time to clarify. I only came into this thread because all the others were boring. :pYeah, well... YOU'RE BORING! :p
Philosopy
07-03-2008, 23:29
Yeah, well... YOU'RE BORING! :p

I could tell a joke...

A prostitute goes up to a man and says "I'll do anything you want, anything at all, for £100!" The man looks at thoughtfully for a moment and then says "ok, paint my house."

I'll get my coat.

*Leaves thread*
UpwardThrust
07-03-2008, 23:43
No. Blame the politicians who created the situation, but don't blame the military who are obligated to carry out the orders of the Commander in Chief and the DOD. (by the way...many of them don't feel it is an "unjustified conflict, or they wouldn't be signing up to fight in it):rolleyes:

Thats exactly the problem ... the people who were in before being drug into an unjust war fine but the people who knowingly sign up to fight in such do not deserve the same respect
Ultraviolent Radiation
07-03-2008, 23:56
It is necessary to have an air force, and those who provide such a service are not at fault. It is those who misuse it who are at fault.
Geniasis
07-03-2008, 23:57
You should be taking your grievance to the Pentagon, not the anti-war activists. It's the Pentagon that turned the young recruits into weapons, and then threw them away after they'd done their dirty work for the politicians and the corporations. It is the Pentagon that pissed on the veterans of this country, not a faceless group of protesters.

But that applies to the anti-war activists as well, doesn't it? They were attacking the wrong target.
Trotskylvania
07-03-2008, 23:57
During the Vietnam war it was "suggested" we not wear out uniforms when traveling. When I came back from Thailand, we got of the plane at Travis AFB, California and we did not have enough time to take a shower and change into civilian clothes before getting on the bus to the airport in Los Angels. It was suggested, "When you get to LAX, get off the bus and go straight to the USO. Change into civilian clothes and remain in the USO until one hour before your flight."

How absolutely frigging sad. We ask the military to risk their life for their country and the freedom of other people then treat them like trash when they come home. How utterly fucking sad. :mad:

You should be taking your grievance to the Pentagon, not the anti-war activists. It's the Pentagon that turned the young recruits into weapons, and then threw them away after they'd done their dirty work for the politicians and the corporations. It is the Pentagon that pissed on the veterans of this country, not a faceless group of protesters.
Gravlen
08-03-2008, 00:11
I could tell a joke...

A prostitute goes up to a man and says "I'll do anything you want, anything at all, for £100!" The man looks at thoughtfully for a moment and then says "ok, paint my house."

I'll get my coat.

*Leaves thread*

...and that's when I tried to buy the horse a prostitute.
Kyronea
08-03-2008, 00:14
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/7282348.stm

aww didums. i LOL'd quite heartily. i still keep bursting into giggles. hahahaha! those poor 'heroes', nobody respects their stupid blind patriotism or wide-eyed flyboy-ism. hehehehehhehehehehhee! fuckwits.

This is not something we can just look at with one point of view or the other. Both sides have merit.

Obviously, people who do a hard job deserve at least some respect. This is true of people in the military--which, by the way, has quite a lot more jobs than foot soldier(as I should know, seeing as I'm going to be changing my job over to the nuclear program in the Navy)--as well as police officers, doctors and other practioners of medicine at hospitals, firepeople, and so on and so forth.

On that same token, they only deserve so much respect and should not be blindly saluted or approved of. These same jobs can be easily abused. A soldier could murder innocent civilians. A police officer could brutally beat a person. A doctor could intentionally poison or mistreat a patient. A fireperson could intentionally fail to rescue someone in time.

Furthermore, in general, the typical soldier/doctor/fireperson/police officer is not responsible for the overall policies of the organization they work for. This is especially true for the military.

My position is that this situation is absolutely uncalled for, in that they have to change their uniforms to avoid verbal abuse. The citizenry should not be abusing these soldiers simply because they have been ordered by the government to somewhere where the citizenry would rather they not be. The citizenry should be blaming the government, not the soldier.

On that same token, again, they don't deserve automatic saluting and respect in the way Atlantean Islands or Celtlund would have us do. I'm sorry, but even as a member of the Navy now I'm not going to say we deserve that, because we don't. We should earn that respect just like everyone else. A nod or acknowledgment of our hard job is fine and should be done, but anything more than that ought to be earned, not bestowed.
Dyakovo
08-03-2008, 01:10
Yes, but what's a fighterfighter?

Someone who fights fighters?
Sumamba Buwhan
08-03-2008, 01:11
fight fighters with fighters
SeathorniaII
08-03-2008, 01:11
Someone who fights fighters?

I was thinking more along the lines of a square fighter or a fighter squared.
The Cat-Tribe
08-03-2008, 01:16
Exercising freedom of speech is one thing, harassing someone or spitting on them, or threatening them is something else.

1. Nothing in the article here says anything about spitting on or threating troops. Merely some vague concern by the RAF about "verbal abuse" by "taunting."

2. I like how we are to judge anti-war protesters (or civilians in general) by the actions of the worst among them, but we are to judge soldiers by the actions of the best among them. :rolleyes:
Straughn
08-03-2008, 05:45
You lost me

"freedom of speech"
Straughn
08-03-2008, 05:55
Yeah, no, not really. Personally, I have major problems with those who volunteer "out of patriotic duty" because I can't help but think they just want to experience some cool fightin' and killin' some , hell yeah! Even if I'm wrong in many if not most cases, which I'm bound to me, I'm still iffy because I simply never got that whole "war & patriotism & glory" thing.
But most people volunteering for the military ([I]especially in the US) simply volunteer because it's a rational decision to make when your options for a secondary education or a living-wage job are severely limited. I'd still try and talk them out of it but I'm not in their shoes, am I?The hap don't match the hope and the hype. Your last part there, though, is a point i made earlier (however clear it appeared).

And even those who go for the patriotism and the glory - do you really think that, when they get there, they like it? They think it's awesome?Right, they were expecting those flowery parades they were told to expect by the people that sent them there in the first place.

They like becoming killers and watching their friends being killed and eventually being killed themselves? Yeah, no. It's easier to bear when you make a polar relationship out of it, one with absolutes in a situation that doesn't respect preconceived absolutes very well.
Still, what did they expect exactly?

I'm currently sitting here surrounded by much more material on stuff like that than you ever want to read because it would make you fucking cry.Why?
And then people make threads about how they can't believe that a soldier in a war zone would ever go and throw a puppy off a cliff. :rolleyes:On that note, to keep up the numbers for hire, the standards were greatly relaxed a few years back.
And to sound a bit trite, people who can't handle responsibilities of life and death over others at a disadvantage to that simply don't belong there, neither by incompetence nor by malice.
Infinite Revolution
08-03-2008, 06:20
my most successful thread ever and i went and forgot about it. and TAI managed to steal the OP. lol, at least he posted something suitably moronic. anacronism much?
Infinite Revolution
08-03-2008, 06:32
I'm not a fan of the military by any stretch of the imagination and that's understating it, but it's also usually not the case that the soldiers who are fighting in the wars of the world are fighting there because they want to. War fucks them up badly enough as it is, I don't think they need people who've never actually been there adding some petty abuse on top of it. No matter how misguided the war they're fighting in.

as far as i'm concerned anyone that joins the military deserves all the shite that's fired at them. being in the military is all about being shot at, anyone that hasn't figured that out by the time they've finished their training is an idiot. joining the military and hoping not to enter a warzone is like jumping out of a plane without a parashute and hoping not to hit the ground. i don't think anyone that joins the military deserves to expect anti-war types to keep quiet and respect their 'sacrifices'. unless they're drafted, fuck 'em, it was their choice to be a tool of an agressive state, they can deal with the fucking consequences. one of them being me taking the piss.
Infinite Revolution
08-03-2008, 06:45
Is 'bullying' from civilians that much of a problem over there? Sounds a little overcautious. I've lived around military bases, before and after Iraq, and haven't seen anyone abusing the military. Joining the military tends to earn you respect around here, especially from older folks.

during the height of the Troubles wearing military uniform in public was strictly verbotten in case of random assassination. even when i was in cadets in london (northolt) we weren't allowed outside the base wearing uniform and had to wear non descript overcoats in minibuses sans berets in case of rocket attacks or whatever and that was c.2000/1. now it's bullying they're scared of. ha!
Laerod
08-03-2008, 10:44
...and that's when I tried to buy the horse a prostitute.Well, it is the least you could do.

my most successful thread ever and i went and forgot about it. and TAI managed to steal the OP. lol, at least he posted something suitably moronic. anacronism much?My condolences. :(
The Atlantian islands
08-03-2008, 12:07
my most successful thread ever and i went and forgot about it. and TAI managed to steal the OP. lol,
Mwahahahahhaa, foo'!
at least he posted something suitably moronic. anacronism much?
That's your opinion. In my opinion the original post was moronic, so I had to post something to counter that.
Kyronea
08-03-2008, 12:18
Mwahahahahhaa, foo'!

That's your opinion. In my opinion the original post was moronic, so I had to post something to counter that.

Perhaps, but you don't counter moronic viewpoints with another moronic viewpoint. (Not saying that Infinite Revolutions viewpoint was actually moronic, though.)
Naturality
08-03-2008, 12:21
During the Vietnam war it was "suggested" we not wear out uniforms when traveling. When I came back from Thailand, we got of the plane at Travis AFB, California and we did not have enough time to take a shower and change into civilian clothes before getting on the bus to the airport in Los Angels. It was suggested, "When you get to LAX, get off the bus and go straight to the USO. Change into civilian clothes and remain in the USO until one hour before your flight."

How absolutely frigging sad. We ask the military to risk their life for their country and the freedom of other people then treat them like trash when they come home. How utterly fucking sad. :mad:

My cousin is based in Germany and they are not allowed to wear their military outfits off base. Back in my dads day they all pretty much did, and it was an honor. But not no more.
Laerod
08-03-2008, 12:25
My cousin is based in Germany and they are not allowed to wear their military outfits off base. Back in my dads day they all pretty much did, and it was an honor. But not no more.Might have a bit to do with the LaBelle bombing.
Longhaul
08-03-2008, 12:41
I just don't understand why off-duty military personnel should be wandering around in public wearing their uniforms anyway. Do off-duty police officers wander around town in uniform?

I don't abuse them when I see them - it would be utterly pointless. People who do choose to harass and/or abuse them are wasting their time since it's not the people they are abusing that they're actually pissed off at anyway. I guess that makes the abusers idiots, in my book.

They do a job. Not all of us like all of the jobs that they get sent to do, but I see the various branches of the military as a necessary evil. In any case, not everything the military gets tasked with is the sort of thing that people protest.
SaintB
08-03-2008, 12:41
fuckwit

That about sums you up nicely me thinks.


Soldiers do not chose when to fight, where to fight, or who to fight. They follow the orders given to them. They are willing to risk life and limb so people like you can call people names like fuckwit without fear of retribution by your government and neighbors. Its not blind patriotism that makes these people tick, for many they thought its the only choice they had, for others its out of a will to do things good, some people want to pay for secondary school, there are as many reawsons for joining as there are people who join. If you want a scapegoat for a war you don't like don't blame the soldiers, you blame the politicians who decided they should be there.

fuckwit
The Atlantian islands
08-03-2008, 12:47
Perhaps, but you don't counter moronic viewpoints with another moronic viewpoint. (Not saying that Infinite Revolutions viewpoint was actually moronic, though.)
I don't think my post was moronic, though.
Laerod
08-03-2008, 12:49
I don't think my post was moronic, though.But you also think that you didn't misspell "Süssli", so your opinion isn't really of any objective value in this case.
The Atlantian islands
08-03-2008, 12:53
But you also think that you didn't misspell "Süssli", so your opinion isn't really of any objective value in this case.
I didn't? It wasn't German....Already explained that.
Kyronea
08-03-2008, 12:57
I don't think my post was moronic, though.

Whereas I do, as I elaborated in my post that sadly everyone seemed to have ignored:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13509587&postcount=154
The Atlantian islands
08-03-2008, 13:00
Whereas I do, as I elaborated in my post that sadly everyone seemed to have ignored:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13509587&postcount=154

I wasn't really ignoring it..I just missed it to be honest. I didn't read every post in this thread because I wasn't too interested in the discussion. Anyway, now that you linked me to your post I can say it was very fair and balanced and well thought out....though, as you pointed out, I tend to place a higher emphasis on respect to military/police/fire/ect authority.
Laerod
08-03-2008, 13:02
I didn't? It wasn't German....Already explained that.There's no such thing as a "süßli" in any language, not even German of the Swiss variant :)
SeathorniaII
08-03-2008, 13:18
Soldiers do not chose when to fight, where to fight, or who to fight. They follow the orders given to them.

And this is the problem. They shouldn't be following orders that they do not agree with. Otherwise they are mere cowards, hiding behind their officers. If they do agree with an order, they should also be prepared to take responsibility for it. In some cases, this does earn them respect. In others, it doesn't.
SeathorniaII
08-03-2008, 13:19
Whereas I do, as I elaborated in my post that sadly everyone seemed to have ignored:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13509587&postcount=154

I was going to say it was a good post.

However, I did not.
The Atlantian islands
08-03-2008, 13:29
There's no such thing as a "süßli" in any language, not even German of the Swiss variant :)
It actually works just fine. It may not be in the dictionary, though there is none for Swiss words, but you could say it in conversation, and I have..and it's understood and works. Like if I said in English "she's a babester", or something...which is more Wayne's World talk than anything :p It's not an English word but it's understood because it works just fine.

Also, as a German you wouldn't know which words do and do not exist in Swiss-German...because there are many that don't exist at all in German. (Not to claim I know every Swiss German word, which I totally don't...but I'm claiming that I know that many do not exist in German, just in Swiss)
Laerod
08-03-2008, 13:32
It actually works just fine. It may not be in the dictionary, though there is none for Swiss words, but you could say it in conversation, and I have..and it's understood and works. Like if I said in English "she's a babester", or something...which is more Wayne's World talk than anything :p It's not an English word but it's understood because it works just fine.

Also, as a German you wouldn't know which words do and do not exist in Swiss-German...because there are many that don't exist at all in German. (Not to claim I know every Swiss German word, which I totally don't...but I'm claiming that I know that many do not exist in German, just in Swiss)We're not talking pronounciation here. You've been riding around on that you didn't misspell a word in an attempt to belittle me. However, you did. Deal with it.
The Atlantian islands
08-03-2008, 13:34
We're not talking pronounciation here. You've been riding around on that you didn't misspell a word in an attempt to belittle me. However, you did. Deal with it.
The only thing I did wrong was being lazy on capitalization...which is just laziness, yet the word is still understood just the same. You deal with it.
Laerod
08-03-2008, 13:35
You deal with it.I have :)
Liuzzo
08-03-2008, 20:19
As I said before, I don't respect someone merely for chosing a profession. I respect acts. I respect what someone does. Being a cop doesn't make you automatically deserving of respect, nor a doctor, nor a paramedic, nor an EMT.

What you do in that position is what matters. You have to earn my respect. And the mere fact that you're employed as a cop, or a doctor, or a teacher, or a fighterfighter, or a lawyer or, yes, even a soldier, is not sufficient to earn my respect by itself.



Nor does JUST being a soldier. Nor does JUST being a cop, or a teacher, or a doctor, or a paramedic, or a fighterfighter, or an EMT automatically earn you my respect.

You're damned right, just because I'm a lawyer doesn't mean I've earned your respect. And just because you're a soldier doesn't mean you've earned mine.

Small distinction, I'm a Marine. Also, you do automatically give respect to a police officer. When he pulls you over u don't start popping off at the mouth right away. He expects respect from you in this situation and you give it. You can't tell me you'd behave exactly the same if some random person flagged you down. You would not ignore his command, because you respect not only him, but the rule of law. There are instances where respect is given automatically as it should. I'm not necessarily making the claim that this should apply to military at this juncture, but it does exist for us all.
Liuzzo
08-03-2008, 20:20
The military is not an "evil enterprise" but it is one that is often utilized for evil goals. Sometimes good, yes, but often evil and self motivated as well. And that's the point. I'm sure some people join the military to do good. Some people join the military because it's the best choice and they have no other options. Some join the military to shoot arabs in the face. The mere fact that you joined the military doesn't earn you any credit with me.

Moreover, even if you did join the military to do good, you did so knowing (or should have known) that there was a very realistic possiblity that you'd be called to do things that aren't very good. If you want to do good things, there are many ways to do good things. Join amnesty, join the peace corp, join the red cross, join teach for america. Why, if your motivation is to do good, would you join an institution where you recognize that there is a realistic possiblity that you will be obligated to do things not very good?

And if your motivation is to "protect america" or "spread democracy" then you really should look at how the military has been used in the last 50 years, and figure out if that has been the purpose and function of the military in the last half century. I applaud wanting to help the world and do good things, but there are many ways to do that that don't involve the possibility that you will one day be obligated to kill someone who was only trying to protect his family from what he viewed as an imperialist invader.

I'd also like to apologize for losing my cool in an earlier post. I can let the moment get the best of me at times.
Straughn
09-03-2008, 01:48
...and that's when I tried to buy the horse a prostitute.

Isn't this supposed to be on Sarkhaan's thread?
Straughn
09-03-2008, 01:53
Perhaps, but you don't counter moronic viewpoints with another moronic viewpoint. You've been here HOW long again? :p
Infinite Revolution
09-03-2008, 02:04
That about sums you up nicely me thinks.


Soldiers do not chose when to fight, where to fight, or who to fight. They follow the orders given to them. They are willing to risk life and limb so people like you can call people names like fuckwit without fear of retribution by your government and neighbors. Its not blind patriotism that makes these people tick, for many they thought its the only choice they had, for others its out of a will to do things good, some people want to pay for secondary school, there are as many reawsons for joining as there are people who join. If you want a scapegoat for a war you don't like don't blame the soldiers, you blame the politicians who decided they should be there.

they choose to fight for the state, and by extension, those politicians. when, who and what have no relevance to my opinion.

nice flame there btw.
Infinite Revolution
09-03-2008, 02:08
Small distinction, I'm a Marine.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH! get your head out of your arse.


Also, you do automatically give respect to a police officer. When he pulls you over u don't start popping off at the mouth right away. He expects respect from you in this situation and you give it. You can't tell me you'd behave exactly the same if some random person flagged you down. You would not ignore his command, because you respect not only him, but the rule of law. There are instances where respect is given automatically as it should. I'm not necessarily making the claim that this should apply to military at this juncture, but it does exist for us all.

i respect the consequences of ignoring a police officer's commands (sometimes). not the law s/he's upholding nor the officer themself.
Ifreann
09-03-2008, 02:12
Small distinction, I'm a Marine. Also, you do automatically give respect to a police officer. When he pulls you over u don't start popping off at the mouth right away. He expects respect from you in this situation and you give it.
No, I don't. Just because he can arrest me doesn't mean I can't tell him to fuck off. Free speech and all that. Speaking of which, have you managed to find a living soldier that fought for freedom of speech yet?
You can't tell me you'd behave exactly the same if some random person flagged you down. You would not ignore his command, because you respect not only him, but the rule of law.
Respecting the rule of law isn't the same as respecting those who enforce it. One can do one but not the other.
There are instances where respect is given automatically as it should. I'm not necessarily making the claim that this should apply to military at this juncture, but it does exist for us all.

Apparently not.
Kyronea
09-03-2008, 02:19
You've been here HOW long again? :p

Oh, hush. I thought it was worth saying anyway.
Straughn
09-03-2008, 02:23
Oh, hush. I thought it was worth saying anyway.Believe it or not, you're one of the most noble people on here.
Which is why, i suspect, you manage to rile people so easily. :)
Straughn
09-03-2008, 02:35
Noble? Really? I have to say that's the first time anyone's ever called me noble.
I mean noble in the chemical sense, of course, like the noble gases. :p
Kyronea
09-03-2008, 02:40
Believe it or not, you're one of the most noble people on here.
Which is why, i suspect, you manage to rile people so easily. :)

Noble? Really? I have to say that's the first time anyone's ever called me noble.
Kyronea
09-03-2008, 03:28
I mean noble in the chemical sense, of course, like the noble gases. :p

...Er, okay then. I'm now confused.
Straughn
09-03-2008, 03:29
...Er, okay then. I'm now confused.
I meant noble in the sense that you're true to form and don't easily get twisted up and convoluted.
:)
As in, with gases, inactive/inert.
SaintB
09-03-2008, 03:56
And this is the problem. They shouldn't be following orders that they do not agree with. Otherwise they are mere cowards, hiding behind their officers. If they do agree with an order, they should also be prepared to take responsibility for it. In some cases, this does earn them respect. In others, it doesn't.

They swear oaths of loyalty. They must obey the orders given to them by the government on behalf of their people. Military training focuses heavily on the concept of truth, honesty, and keeping your word. You are asking the soldier to violate all they stand for. IT IS UP TO THE COMMON PEOPLE to remove from office those who would send them off to fight in unpopular wars. Who is the coward? The man who honors his words and does what he has sworn to do and upholds what he has said and done in the past, or the man who has to hide behind their social prejudice and rather than attempt any real change... takes it out on those who have no control over their circumstances? Don't be setting standards where it is impossible to be met.
SaintB
09-03-2008, 03:59
they choose to fight for the state, and by extension, those politicians. when, who and what have no relevance to my opinion.

nice flame there btw.

Flame? I believe you are the one who started the flame the second you posted the OP. I merely used your own words to illustrate my point. If I wanted to flame I could flame. In fact, my use of the word you claim is my flame was a direct quote of you.

Who's flaming?

See my above post.
Kyronea
09-03-2008, 04:00
I meant noble in the sense that you're true to form and don't easily get twisted up and convoluted.
:)
As in, with gases, inactive/inert.
Oooh.

Yeah, that does describe me.
Kyronea
09-03-2008, 04:02
They swear oaths of loyalty. They must obey the orders given to them by the government on behalf of their people. Military training focuses heavily on the concept of truth, honesty, and keeping your word. You are asking the soldier to violate all they stand for. IT IS UP TO THE COMMON PEOPLE to remove from office those who would send them off to fight in unpopular wars. Who is the coward? The man who honors his words and does what he has sworn to do and upholds what he has said and done in the past, or the man who has to hide behind their social prejudice and rather than attempt any real change... takes it out on those who have no control over their circumstances? Don't be setting standards where it is impossible to be met.
This is true. As much as I hate to say it, it's not as simple as just refusing to obey an order, especially since the odds of your accomplishing anything by doing that are slim to none. Real life isn't like a television show or a movie; you're not going to suddenly lead a revolt just by refusing to do something yourself. You'll just get yourself tossed in the brig or whatever sort of jail facility they have and someone else will carry out the order. Furthermore you'll be prosecuted and tried in a military court and dishonorably discharged, which, in the U.S. at least, will essentially screw you over for life no matter what you try to do.
Straughn
09-03-2008, 04:05
Oooh.

Yeah, that does describe me.

That being, of course, as well as anyone might know you for as long as you've been on here.
Straughn
09-03-2008, 04:06
Straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.

Disclaimer: This does not mean I am implying that Kyronea is a horse.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13509579&postcount=153
SeathorniaII
09-03-2008, 04:08
They swear oaths of loyalty. They must obey the orders given to them by the government on behalf of their people.

Even when those orders conflict clear ethical boundaries?

Soldiers are still human you know. They can still resign.

Military training focuses heavily on the concept of truth, honesty, and keeping your word. You are asking the soldier to violate all they stand for.

No, I am asking them to stand up for what they believe is right. If they agree with the orders, then so be it. If they disagree, they just need to be prepared to take the consequences and either follow them or refuse.

For example, I would expect a soldier to disobey an order to blatantly execute a civilian for no reason. Reality, however, teaches me to expect otherwise. Nevertheless, I keep my hopes high - they remain human however.

IT IS UP TO THE COMMON PEOPLE

NEWSFLASH: A soldier is a common person.

Don't be setting standards where it is impossible to be met.

Is it impossible to refuse an order? No.
SeathorniaII
09-03-2008, 04:09
This is true. As much as I hate to say it, it's not as simple as just refusing to obey an order, especially since the odds of your accomplishing anything by doing that are slim to none. Real life isn't like a television show or a movie; you're not going to suddenly lead a revolt just by refusing to do something yourself. You'll just get yourself tossed in the brig or whatever sort of jail facility they have and someone else will carry out the order. Furthermore you'll be prosecuted and tried in a military court and dishonorably discharged, which, in the U.S. at least, will essentially screw you over for life no matter what you try to do.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have signed up in the first place, if they weren't willing to agree to the orders they might be submitted to?
SaintB
09-03-2008, 04:13
This is true. As much as I hate to say it, it's not as simple as just refusing to obey an order, especially since the odds of your accomplishing anything by doing that are slim to none. Real life isn't like a television show or a movie; you're not going to suddenly lead a revolt just by refusing to do something yourself. You'll just get yourself tossed in the brig or whatever sort of jail facility they have and someone else will carry out the order. Furthermore you'll be prosecuted and tried in a military court and dishonorably discharged, which, in the U.S. at least, will essentially screw you over for life no matter what you try to do.

Straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.

Disclaimer: This does not mean I am implying that Kyronea is a horse.
SeathorniaII
09-03-2008, 04:24
To be fair, we do not expect potential soldiers to be capable of predicting the future, which is what you are implying that they should be able to do.

If a soldier can't work out that they might be forced to kill someone and cannot agree to this, yet still sign up, then they are kinda stupid.
Non Aligned States
09-03-2008, 04:29
Then perhaps they shouldn't have signed up in the first place, if they weren't willing to agree to the orders they might be submitted to?

To be fair, we do not expect potential soldiers to be capable of predicting the future, which is what you are implying that they should be able to do.
Kyronea
09-03-2008, 04:30
Then perhaps they shouldn't have signed up in the first place, if they weren't willing to agree to the orders they might be submitted to?

Indeed. That's one of the reasons I signed up for the Navy rather than the Army or the Marine Corps, because in the Navy I'll not be involved in the conflict I am personally objecting to--Iraq--and thus won't have a problem.

It's still not as simple as that, though. After all, even in times where most orders are likely to be just fine and dandy, you could always end up somewhere where you are given questionable orders and refusing to follow them could bring seriously consequences.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't stick to your principles and refuse anyway. I am saying, however, that it brings a load of consequences and is not by any stretch of the imagination an easy decision to make. You're painting the situation as though it's clear cut and dry and it will never be that way.
SaintB
09-03-2008, 04:40
Even when those orders conflict clear ethical boundaries?

Soldiers are still human you know. They can still resign.


How is being stationed in a city or country even remotely considered a violation of a person's ethical boundaries? I'd like an explanation.


No, I am asking them to stand up for what they believe is right. If they agree with the orders, then so be it. If they disagree, they just need to be prepared to take the consequences and either follow them or refuse.

For example, I would expect a soldier to disobey an order to blatantly execute a civilian for no reason. Reality, however, teaches me to expect otherwise. Nevertheless, I keep my hopes high - they remain human however.


1. I fail to see how this has anything to do with soldiers stationed at an installation on their home soil who are being threatened and insulted because they are in uniform.
2. I would be willing to bet that in most nations 9 out of 10 soldiers would refuse an order to kill a civilian.

NEWSFLASH: A soldier is a common person.

Yes and so are people who want to sit around and blame the soldiers for everything. It takes a concerted effort by everyone to make a change in government and I do not see how hating the armed forces is in any way constructive.

Is it impossible to refuse an order? No.

In the United States of America it is considered a felony or even treason to disobey any order that does not conflict with Federal Law or the Rules of Engagement as set by Congress and the Joint Chiefs. In a sense, there are many cases where it is practically impossible to not obey an order. Several other militaries use a similar doctrine.
SeathorniaII
09-03-2008, 05:24
~snip~

For the purposes of this discussion, I'd like to point out that I am mainly ignoring the OP. That might clear up a lot of misunderstandings.

Remember that I in principle oppose violent means to an end. That is not to say that I do so always (WWII comes to mind, and if France had just stood up to Germany when they had moved into the demilitarized zone... well, we might have avoided WWII altogether. WWI, however, is a clear example of the futile use of military force). For this same reason, I would actually side with the RAF in the OP's case. However, the RAF and anyone in it still has no claim to automatic respect. People don't have to fraternize with them and can willingly avoid them if they want to, among other things.

Like everyone else, they should expect to be taunted from time to time. Sure it's annoying, but that's just something you've got to deal with. What is not acceptable, however, is when that line is crossed and turns into abuse one way or the other.

I might also add that I lost my train of thought and failed to express what I have been trying to word in the past five minutes <.<

As for the article itself:
These are the section I don't have a problem with:
Defence Secretary Des Browne said: "We must defend our forces' right to wear their uniforms in public.
Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: "I think that the majority of our public would be appalled to hear that there are no-go areas for our Armed Forces, even in their own country."

Reason: They do have the right to wear their uniforms, just as they have the right to wear any other clothes in public and they do have the right to be in public.

These are the sections I do have a problem with:
"It is a great shame that some individuals in this community don't respect our forces, who are daily doing a great deal for this nation.
Air Chief Marshall Sir Glenn Torpy, said: "Whatever people's views are about specific military operations, everyone should be able to recognise the bravery and professionalism of our Armed Forces and respect the difficult job they do."

Reason: Other jobs aren't respected by default, theirs shouldn't be either.
Shlishi
09-03-2008, 07:31
How is being stationed in a city or country even remotely considered a violation of a person's ethical boundaries? I'd like an explanation.


Are we having the same conversation here?


1. I fail to see how this has anything to do with soldiers stationed at an installation on their home soil who are being threatened and insulted because they are in uniform.
2. I would be willing to bet that in most nations 9 out of 10 soldiers would refuse an order to kill a civilian.


1. It doesn't, but it does have an effect on the soldiers that they're being blamed for by proxy.
2. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
About 60% of civilians will accept a totally non-binding order to kill a civilian.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)
A soldier not only has actual consequences for refusing, but also is trained specifically to obey orders. 1 in 10 refusal rate, tops.


Yes and so are people who want to sit around and blame the soldiers for everything. It takes a concerted effort by everyone to make a change in government and I do not see how hating the armed forces is in any way constructive.


No more then liking the armed forces. Your point?


In the United States of America it is considered a felony or even treason to disobey any order that does not conflict with Federal Law or the Rules of Engagement as set by Congress and the Joint Chiefs. In a sense, there are many cases where it is practically impossible to not obey an order. Several other militaries use a similar doctrine.
True.
Which is why, as I've pointed out above, about 1 in 10 soldiers tops will disobey a bad order.
Which is absolutely terrible.
Geniasis
09-03-2008, 10:39
For example, I would expect a soldier to disobey an order to blatantly execute a civilian for no reason. Reality, however, teaches me to expect otherwise. Nevertheless, I keep my hopes high - they remain human however.

I'm pretty sure that they're not allowed to be given orders like that in the first place.
Rhursbourg
09-03-2008, 11:43
it was done in freaking Peterborough its strange place, have never seen the them been spat upon and abused when they walk through Lincoln wearing Uniform maybe that because the folks of Lincoln are more used to seeing folks in uniform and that RAF seem to own hell of a lot land in Lincolnshire or that there is a LOT of Retired Servicemen. the thing is Peterborough full of Muslims well it seems to be form when you enter it form the north with the largest building you see being a Mosque its probably more than likely the pricks of Peterbourgh that do it no matter their background that reminds me i saw one of most moving sights yesterday a little girl laying the a flower on the Bomber commands Memorial Stone in Lincoln Cathedral
New Drakonia
09-03-2008, 13:12
it was done in freaking Peterborough its strange place, have never seen the them been spat upon and abused when they walk through Lincoln wearing Uniform maybe that because the folks of Lincoln are more used to seeing folks in uniform and that RAF seem to own hell of a lot land in Lincolnshire or that there is a LOT of Retired Servicemen. the thing is Peterborough full of Muslims well it seems to be form when you enter it form the north with the largest building you see being a Mosque its probably more than likely the pricks of Peterbourgh that do it no matter their background that reminds me i saw one of most moving sights yesterday a little girl laying the a flower on the Bomber commands Memorial Stone in Lincoln Cathedral

Punctuations!
We need more Punctuations!
Verdigroth
09-03-2008, 13:16
When your military is involved in unpopular, unjust conflicts, what do you expect? Everyone to bow down when they walk by? Uh no. I'll Godwin this if you make me.

the military doesn't pick fights it just goes where the people who elected its chief executive tells it to. the us elected bush jr so we went to Iraq. protest the president not the troops
SeathorniaII
09-03-2008, 13:23
I'm pretty sure that they're not allowed to be given orders like that in the first place.

No, but it still happens from time to time, given the fact that people aren't perfect. Because soldiers are people, they do not deserve respect until it has been earned, mainly because they are still fallible and can and do still make mistakes, just like everybody else. We don't automatically respect every doctor, teacher and cop, do we?
Gravlen
09-03-2008, 14:16
Isn't this supposed to be on Sarkhaan's thread?

I'm sure it could be in any thread ;)
Fishutopia
09-03-2008, 15:22
Soldiers don't create policy. Thus they don't deserve the scorn of civilians.

Even those returning from Vietnam, when things like the Mai-Lai were known to have occured, did not deserve the treatment they received. How does the civilian insulting that specific soldier know he wasn't a paragon of virtue?

It would be like me going to Texas and spitting at every Texan as they voted for George Bush first. Unjustified, pathetic, and unreasonable. I hope this stupid analogy, makes anyone who has ever spat at a soldier, think twice. If you are going to spit at someone, spit at your congressman.
CanuckHeaven
09-03-2008, 16:12
Well, I'm sorry you think the people of Kuwait and Iraq would be better off under Saddam. Oh, and the people of South Korea better off under the dictatorship of Kim?:rolleyes:
Ummmm, I think it was one or two of your guys that supported Saddam? I do believe their names were Reagan and Bush the Elder.
Geniasis
09-03-2008, 18:03
No, but it still happens from time to time, given the fact that people aren't perfect. Because soldiers are people, they do not deserve respect until it has been earned, mainly because they are still fallible and can and do still make mistakes, just like everybody else. We don't automatically respect every doctor, teacher and cop, do we?

This comes back to the whole disobeying orders thing. See, this is a case where the soldier would actually be required to disobey the order given, since the order to blatantly shoot a civilian is an unlawful order. It isn't legitimate and the soldier is not required to follow it and, IIRC is legally accountable if he does.
SeathorniaII
09-03-2008, 18:45
This comes back to the whole disobeying orders thing. See, this is a case where the soldier would actually be required to disobey the order given, since the order to blatantly shoot a civilian is an unlawful order. It isn't legitimate and the soldier is not required to follow it and, IIRC is legally accountable if he does.

Yes, but a soldier remains human and therefore fallible. As much as they are required to disobey that order, there's never a hundred percent certainty that they will. My point remains: They are human and should be treated like any other. Hence, not given automatic respect.

Also, if you look at some of the people who unconditionally respect and support soldiers, then you'll note that some of them are also supportive of civilians getting killed if it means our goals are met, or of innocents getting tortured if it means we get to torture the guilty.
Straughn
10-03-2008, 07:10
I'm sure it could be in any thread ;)

Hell yeah. It'll be hotter than cowbell!
Straughn
10-03-2008, 07:12
the military doesn't pick fights it just goes where the people who elected its chief executive tells it to. the us elected bush jr so we went to Iraq. protest the president not the troops

And in many cases, as well, when the constitution is actually followed, the Congress is culpable for declaring war in the first place.
Besides, Bush can't be responsible since after Rumsfeld fucked it all up, Bush passed the buck on to the "generals on the ground"'s advice.
Knights of Liberty
10-03-2008, 07:20
Dear Knights of Liberty,

I am not sure what problem you have with domino theory. I think that it makes complete sense for the world to unite in opposition to communism and when communists invade a weak free country, the world rallies behind the invaded country and the UN forces fight and defeat the communist invaders.

Because it was nothing more than a half baked theory whose sole purpose was to give us justification in the eyes of the people to get involved where we shouldnt have been?

I just do not get it. Communist forces had a global agenda of world domination. Why is it so bad to respond with a global agenda of prevention of communist expansion?

Really? Prove it.

As far as Iraq goes. Saddam was a dictator. Most Iraqis are better off with him dead.

As far as Iraq goes. Saddam was a dictator. Most Iraqis are better off with him dead.

This has already been addressed.


The fact that there are terrorists running around in Iraq causing problems for innocent civillians is all the more reason that we should be supportive of military efforts to fight them.

Or all the more reason we should leave...if Iraqis are blowing us up there clearly dont want us there.

Iraqi forces and their American and other allies are doing a splendid and brave job of confronting the evil terrorists.

I disagree. The body count also disagrees.

There have been problems and errors as there have been in all wars, but our guys are the good guys. We should never surrender to terrorists.

Indeed, Abu Grahab and waterboarding is the kind of things good guys do.
Risottia
10-03-2008, 08:25
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/7282348.stm

aww didums. i LOL'd quite heartily. i still keep bursting into giggles. hahahaha! those poor 'heroes', nobody respects their stupid blind patriotism or wide-eyed flyboy-ism. hehehehehhehehehehhee! fuckwits.

Poor military supermen machos get abused by rural granny running the grocery shop. Lol.
If they can't shoulder the uniform, they shouldn't wear one.
Hoyteca
10-03-2008, 08:32
Because it was nothing more than a half baked theory whose sole purpose was to give us justification in the eyes of the people to get involved where we shouldnt have been?



Really? Prove it.





This has already been addressed.




Or all the more reason we should leave...if Iraqis are blowing us up there clearly dont want us there.


I disagree. The body count also disagrees.



Indeed, Abu Grahab and waterboarding is the kind of things good guys do.

but the Iraqis are blowing EACHOTHER up.
AnarchyeL
10-03-2008, 08:36
Exercising freedom of speech is one thing, harassing someone or spitting on them, or threatening them is something else.Ah, the spitting myth. :rolleyes:

Did you know that not one "hippies spit on me" story appeared in print until the early 1980s? Not one newspaper article, not one letter... and not ever, to this day, one shred of actual documentary evidence like a video or photograph.

Debunking a Myth (http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=215).
Straughn
10-03-2008, 08:39
but the Iraqis are blowing EACHOTHER up.

! That's the first we've heard of it !
Non Aligned States
10-03-2008, 08:59
If a soldier can't work out that they might be forced to kill someone and cannot agree to this, yet still sign up, then they are kinda stupid.

That's not really the question is it? It's not that they might be forced to kill someone. It's expected that if you join the army, and if you get sent somewhere that isn't disaster relief, you may be forced to kill someone. Only dummies wouldn't know that.

Rather, it's whether they might be forced to kill unarmed prisoners, torture people, or the sorts of inhuman things that got people the death sentence when they went to court. I doubt many had that idea just before leaving, except maybe the sociopaths.

Not that this excuses them when they do these sorts of things, no. They should be rotting in jail when they do that for many years. It just makes it clear that we don't know if and when these sorts of things happen.
SeathorniaII
10-03-2008, 09:15
That's not really the question is it? It's not that they might be forced to kill someone. It's expected that if you join the army, and if you get sent somewhere that isn't disaster relief, you may be forced to kill someone. Only dummies wouldn't know that.

Rather, it's whether they might be forced to kill unarmed prisoners, torture people, or the sorts of inhuman things that got people the death sentence when they went to court. I doubt many had that idea just before leaving, except maybe the sociopaths.

Not that this excuses them when they do these sorts of things, no. They should be rotting in jail when they do that for many years. It just makes it clear that we don't know if and when these sorts of things happen.

I'll agree with this. I've nothing to add, really. We don't know. Sometimes, the soldiers come through, do the right thing and deserve respect. Other times, they fail to meet the standards and do not deserve any respect, even if the military they serve decides to forgive them. Even in the same military, you can't just say that because one soldier did something awesome, they all deserve respect, cause then you could do the opposite too.

Very much like in a hospital, where the drunk surgeon might be very skilled, but he doesn't deserve respect since he puts alcohol above patient safety.
Geniasis
10-03-2008, 09:56
I'll agree with this. I've nothing to add, really. We don't know. Sometimes, the soldiers come through, do the right thing and deserve respect. Other times, they fail to meet the standards and do not deserve any respect, even if the military they serve decides to forgive them. Even in the same military, you can't just say that because one soldier did something awesome, they all deserve respect, cause then you could do the opposite too.

Very much like in a hospital, where the drunk surgeon might be very skilled, but he doesn't deserve respect since he puts alcohol above patient safety.

Unless he's some drunken savant who works incredibly efficiency only when inebriated.
Laerod
10-03-2008, 11:40
I just do not get it. Communist forces had a global agenda of world domination. Why is it so bad to respond with a global agenda of prevention of communist expansion?Really? Prove it.You're kidding, right?
If not, here you go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_revolution), kiddo.
Kyronea
10-03-2008, 12:21
You're kidding, right?
If not, here you go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_revolution), kiddo.

Ideologically speaking, that's not the same thing at all. What's spoken about there is the world deciding to embrace communism, not communists going out and conquering it. It's rather different, really.

Of course most communists with any real power over world affairs wanted to bring communism to the rest of the world by force, but that's beside the point.
Laerod
10-03-2008, 12:28
Ideologically speaking, that's not the same thing at all. What's spoken about there is the world deciding to embrace communism, not communists going out and conquering it. It's rather different, really.

Of course most communists with any real power over world affairs wanted to bring communism to the rest of the world by force, but that's beside the point.That's not beside the point at all.
Kyronea
10-03-2008, 12:30
That's not beside the point at all.

Sure it is, if the point is that the ideology is not about world conquest.

If, however, we're talking about communists, then it is most definitely not beside the point.
Laerod
10-03-2008, 12:37
Sure it is, if the point is that the ideology is not about world conquest.Good thing it's world domination that we're talking about, huh?
Hamilay
10-03-2008, 12:41
Sure it is, if the point is that the ideology is not about world conquest.

If, however, we're talking about communists, then it is most definitely not beside the point.

Communist forces had a global agenda of world domination.

Sorry to butt in here, but it appears that we are.

*claps hands*

There, looks like you're agreed? :)
Kyronea
10-03-2008, 12:45
Good thing it's world domination that we're talking about, huh?

Indeed.
Fishutopia
10-03-2008, 14:36
I just do not get it. Capitalist forces had a global agenda of world domination. Why is it so bad to respond with a global agenda of prevention of capitalist expansion?
Did a small edit to prove a point. Considering how damaged USSR was after WWII, USA started the war of ideologies.
One can easily see the Marshall Plan as a n attack to spread Capitalism, to potential communist countries. Especially considering the money from the Marshall plan was used to shore up right wing leaders (even if they had been Nazi collaborators).
Rambhutan
10-03-2008, 14:41
This must be the first time anyone in the RAF has been described as "big tough military men".
Peepelonia
10-03-2008, 15:03
When your military is involved in unpopular, unjust conflicts, what do you expect? Everyone to bow down when they walk by? Uh no. I'll Godwin this if you make me.

The real QFT!

I for one don't really like members of our armed forces. All of my personal experiances with your everyday sqauddie, airman or salior has led me to belive that these people are not the best to be around.(go to a squadie town and try to have a quiet drink to see what I mean)

Having said that though of course I see the need for armed forces, and I even think that the job they do is one that people need to reconise as dangerous, and so these people should be treated better.

Again though, I'm gonna blame the goverment, I know many ex soliders who just can't ajust to life on civvy street(perhaps in the USA it is differant) but over here it certianly seems that after their time is up, the goverment just lets them go, with a miniumun of re-training or mental adjustments.
Sanmartin
10-03-2008, 15:12
Ah, the spitting myth. :rolleyes:

Did you know that not one "hippies spit on me" story appeared in print until the early 1980s? Not one newspaper article, not one letter... and not ever, to this day, one shred of actual documentary evidence like a video or photograph.

Debunking a Myth (http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=215).

It happens often enough now. So it's no longer a "myth".
SeathorniaII
10-03-2008, 15:26
It happens often enough now. So it's no longer a "myth".

I'm sure then that you can point out the massive amounts of protesters that go around spitting on people for bad reasons.
Sanmartin
10-03-2008, 15:28
I'm sure then that you can point out the massive amounts of protesters that go around spitting on people for bad reasons.

It's been in the news often enough over the past few years.

Not too long ago, here in Georgia, some students from a local university beat a woman and her children (her husband was away in Iraq), calling her a baby killer. They also beat the kids.

Apparently, the students there are so against soldiers that just having the local base sticker on your bumper is enough to incite a riot.
Laerod
10-03-2008, 15:39
It's been in the news often enough over the past few years.

Not too long ago, here in Georgia, some students from a local university beat a woman and her children (her husband was away in Iraq), calling her a baby killer. They also beat the kids.

Apparently, the students there are so against soldiers that just having the local base sticker on your bumper is enough to incite a riot.Gotta love the "it's been on the news", "I heard it from a friend" and "it's common knowledge" basis of most urban legends.
Sanmartin
10-03-2008, 15:40
Gotta love the "it's been on the news", "I heard it from a friend" and "it's common knowledge" basis of most urban legends.

Gee, so no one spat on recent Iraq veterans who were at the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial a little over a year ago, even though that was on TV at the time.

That's it - even if it's visible and recorded, you'll still say it's false and never happened. How Stalinesque of you.
SeathorniaII
10-03-2008, 16:52
It's been in the news often enough over the past few years.

Not too long ago, here in Georgia, some students from a local university beat a woman and her children (her husband was away in Iraq), calling her a baby killer. They also beat the kids.

Apparently, the students there are so against soldiers that just having the local base sticker on your bumper is enough to incite a riot.

That doesn't cut it with me, sorry, especially since it hasn't been on the news where I am.

(Psst - you'll have to provide links! if it's on the news, it's on the internet)
Sanmartin
10-03-2008, 17:01
That doesn't cut it with me, sorry, especially since it hasn't been on the news where I am.

(Psst - you'll have to provide links! if it's on the news, it's on the internet)

It isn't always on the Internet after a while. Stories on local news outlets are available for a month or so, and then disappear.

So go ahead - comfort yourself and say it never happened.
Laerod
10-03-2008, 17:04
Gee, so no one spat on recent Iraq veterans who were at the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial a little over a year ago, even though that was on TV at the time.

That's it - even if it's visible and recorded, you'll still say it's false and never happened. How Stalinesque of you.I'm sure you'll be able to provide a link to it and proof this is an example of behavior from the majority of the anti-war protesters, because I sure as hell won't be taking your word for it.
Sanmartin
10-03-2008, 17:11
I'm sure you'll be able to provide a link to it and proof this is an example of behavior from the majority of the anti-war protesters, because I sure as hell won't be taking your word for it.

Here's an example:

Lauren Maggi goes to court on January 27, 2007. Presiding over the hearing is Judge Higgins.

Location. Court room 260A, Onondaga County, City of Syracuse Criminal Courthouse, 505 South Street, Syracuse, NY 13202.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/updates/index.ssf?/mtlogs/syr_poststandard/archives/2006_12.html


Woman accused of spitting in soldier's face


A Syracuse woman was charged after a Fort Drum soldier accused her of spitting on him without provocation at Hancock International Airport, Syracuse police said.

Lauren Maggi, 35, of 256 Thurber St., was charged with second-degree harassment after the Nov. 22 incident, according to a police report.

Jason Jones, 21, told police a woman he did not know walked up to him near the United Airlines ticket counter, asked him if he was a Fort Drum solider and, when he responded that he was, spat in his face.

A second soldier on the scene supported Jones’ accusation, police said. Maggi offered no explanation for her conduct, police said. She could not be reached for comment tonight.


You'll have to pay to access the archives for the story.

Oh - I guess that means to you that it's not true...
Laerod
10-03-2008, 17:21
You'll have to pay to access the archives for the story.

Oh - I guess that means to you that it's not true...Not really. I'll go out on a limb and accept it. Course, problem here is that one woman isn't necessarily representative of the whole anti-war protest. The reason the spitting is being called a myth isn't because we think it never happened, it's because we think it wasn't the common reception a soldier got.